|
Bringing jobs back
There’s “talk” of some steel plants reopening . One just announced 500 jobs. Sure that’s small but it’s a start.
|
Bringing jobs back
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 06:19:21 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
Theres talk of some steel plants reopening . One just announced 500 jobs. Sure thats small but its a start. I think its a push in the right direction and proves that there can be a reversal to bring work back to the US. Im for it... Can't wait for Harry to comment on this. Probably complain that 'Trump steel' is weak stuff. |
Bringing jobs back
8:17 AMJohn H - show quoted text - Can't wait for Harry to comment on this. Probably complain that 'Trump steel' is weak stuff. .... Or some kind of union snag hidden in there somewhere... |
Bringing jobs back
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:18:00 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 06:19:21 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Theres talk of some steel plants reopening . One just announced 500 jobs. Sure thats small but its a start. I think its a push in the right direction and proves that there can be a reversal to bring work back to the US. Im for it... Can't wait for Harry to comment on this. Probably complain that 'Trump steel' is weak stuff. === It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Bringing jobs back
Keyser Soze wrote:
Tim wrote: 8:17 AMJohn H - show quoted text - Can't wait for Harry to comment on this. Probably complain that 'Trump steel' is weak stuff. ... Or some kind of union snag hidden in there somewhere... Corporations gave away our steel industry. Bad decisions and the fact plentiful iron ore was used up. Also, the union pay rates were very excessive for the education needed. |
Bringing jobs back
On 12 Mar 2018 17:03:37 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:
Tim wrote: 8:17 AMJohn H - show quoted text - Can't wait for Harry to comment on this. Probably complain that 'Trump steel' is weak stuff. ... Or some kind of union snag hidden in there somewhere... Corporations gave away our steel industry. === Are all corporations evil or just the ones you don't like? US steel workers have always been highly unionized and well paid by industry standards. That might have been just another bad management decision. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Bringing jobs back
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:44:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 3/12/18 1:22 PM, wrote: On 12 Mar 2018 17:03:37 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote: Tim wrote: 8:17 AMJohn H - show quoted text - Can't wait for Harry to comment on this. Probably complain that 'Trump steel' is weak stuff. ... Or some kind of union snag hidden in there somewhere... Corporations gave away our steel industry. === Are all corporations evil or just the ones you don't like? US steel workers have always been highly unionized and well paid by industry standards. That might have been just another bad management decision. The U.S. steel industry decided to let its industry head overseas by not investing in new batch plants that made much better use of scrap and the result of not investing properly also killed the ore and coal industries. It wasn't as the developing technologies in making steel snuck up on the U.S. industry. === The U.S. steel industry didn't decide to let its industry head overseas anymore than the US auto industry decided to let Japan become a major auto building power. In both cases it was a result of inaction due to complacent, and somewhat arrogant management, resting on the status quo. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Bringing jobs back
|
Bringing jobs back
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. === Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Bringing jobs back
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. === Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. |
Bringing jobs back
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. === Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box...especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. |
Bringing jobs back
On 3/13/18 9:06 AM, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. === Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Our rural letter carrier says it takes more time to unlock, fill, and lock the "neighborhood mail box" that serves the five houses on our little street than it would take to drive the street down and back and service the individual mail boxes that usually would be near the street end of the individual driveways. U.S.P.S. management has not been "stellar" down here for many decades. |
Bringing jobs back
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:37:34 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. === Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. === It's probable that unions would have opposed modernization of steel plants if it meant fewer jobs, but it's still a management failure in the long run. More likely the decisions were driven by a desire to keep the old open hearth furnaces going as long as possible in order to avoid the investment expense. The old plants were cash cows until competition drove them under. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Bringing jobs back
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:48:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 3/13/18 9:06 AM, True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. === Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Our rural letter carrier says it takes more time to unlock, fill, and lock the "neighborhood mail box" that serves the five houses on our little street than it would take to drive the street down and back and service the individual mail boxes that usually would be near the street end of the individual driveways. U.S.P.S. management has not been "stellar" down here for many decades. Was USPS ever "stellar"? ;-) I will say they do seem to be as good at UPS or Fed Ex where I am tho. You could also point out that the post office is a constitutionally granted service, one of the few of all that we get from the government. What is not defined is how many deliveries we get a week or where that delivery is. As long as they maintain "Priority Mail" and all that entails, they do have a reason to come to your home. There are lots of places around here that do use community located mail boxes tho and the USPS says it is faster. Usually there are a lot more than 5 boxes there tho. Where my daughter was in West Palm it was more like 100, all grouped together and they just backed the truck up, opened the back panel and stuffed in the mail. In about 15 minutes they did them all. It should be noted that a rural carrier does a lot more than you see since they also have to sort and bundle the mail before they leave the post office. Your real 1st class comes somewhat sorted but they still have to get it lined up the way they want to run their route and stuff in all of that other junk mail in your bundle. I know a rural carrier who was actually fired because he was not making sure the junk mail you got was addressed to you, in spite of the fact that everyone on his route was getting exactly the same envelope. That was stuff sent to "occupant" but each address was specific. |
Bringing jobs back
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:22:33 -0400,
wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:37:34 -0400, John H. wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. === Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. === It's probable that unions would have opposed modernization of steel plants if it meant fewer jobs, but it's still a management failure in the long run. More likely the decisions were driven by a desire to keep the old open hearth furnaces going as long as possible in order to avoid the investment expense. The old plants were cash cows until competition drove them under. We do have a long rich history of crusty old businessmen resisting change. There is a series about the old robber barons I watched in my cruise through old documentaries and they were talking about how Henry Ford almost ran his company into the ground because he would not let go of the Model T. |
Bringing jobs back
True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. == Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Why do we need 6day a week delivery? Heck 4 would be sufficient. All the real timely reports seem to come via email. |
Bringing jobs back
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 10:48:05 UTC-3, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/13/18 9:06 AM, True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. === Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear.. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Our rural letter carrier says it takes more time to unlock, fill, and lock the "neighborhood mail box" that serves the five houses on our little street than it would take to drive the street down and back and service the individual mail boxes that usually would be near the street end of the individual driveways. U.S.P.S. management has not been "stellar" down here for many decades. Another problem a year or so ago was the problematic locks on those super mail boxes. They would pop open and anyone could get at your mail. |
Bringing jobs back
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 13:37:16 UTC-3, Bill wrote:
True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. == Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Why do we need 6day a week delivery? Heck 4 would be sufficient. All the real timely reports seem to come via email. We lost Saturday mail when I was a kid...or maybe high school. It's been 5 day a week door to door here in the city ever since. |
Bringing jobs back
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:37:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:
True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. == Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Why do we need 6day a week delivery? Heck 4 would be sufficient. All the real timely reports seem to come via email. Union jobs. The more deliveries, the more deliverers. |
Bringing jobs back
On 13 Mar 2018 17:49:13 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:
True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 13:37:16 UTC-3, Bill wrote: True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. == Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Why do we need 6day a week delivery? Heck 4 would be sufficient. All the real timely reports seem to come via email. We lost Saturday mail when I was a kid...or maybe high school. It's been 5 day a week door to door here in the city ever since. Right-wing trash is always eager to eliminate someone elses job. Proves my point. Keep wasting the money 'cause the union says to waste the money. |
Bringing jobs back
Keyser Soze wrote:
True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 13:37:16 UTC-3, Bill wrote: True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. == Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Why do we need 6day a week delivery? Heck 4 would be sufficient. All the real timely reports seem to come via email. We lost Saturday mail when I was a kid...or maybe high school. It's been 5 day a week door to door here in the city ever since. Right-wing trash is always eager to eliminate someone else’s job. Bull****. How much does that extra day cost us taxpayers? Those who actually pay taxes. Socialism failed everywhere it has been tried. Why should government, be an employer just to have a job? We would be much better off, if we actually borrowed he CCC idea and put most of the welfare collectors to work on infrastructure and cleanup. Save welfare for those who cannot actually work. |
Bringing jobs back
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:41:53 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote: True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 13:37:16 UTC-3, Bill wrote: True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. == Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Why do we need 6day a week delivery? Heck 4 would be sufficient. All the real timely reports seem to come via email. We lost Saturday mail when I was a kid...or maybe high school. It's been 5 day a week door to door here in the city ever since. Right-wing trash is always eager to eliminate someone elses job. Bull****. How much does that extra day cost us taxpayers? Those who actually pay taxes. Socialism failed everywhere it has been tried. Why should government, be an employer just to have a job? We would be much better off, if we actually borrowed he CCC idea and put most of the welfare collectors to work on infrastructure and cleanup. Save welfare for those who cannot actually work. Even Donnie would agree wholeheartedly with this post. |
Bringing jobs back
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:41:53 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 13:37:16 UTC-3, Bill wrote: True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. == Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Why do we need 6day a week delivery? Heck 4 would be sufficient. All the real timely reports seem to come via email. We lost Saturday mail when I was a kid...or maybe high school. It's been 5 day a week door to door here in the city ever since. Right-wing trash is always eager to eliminate someone elses job. Bull****. How much does that extra day cost us taxpayers? Those who actually pay taxes. Socialism failed everywhere it has been tried. Why should government, be an employer just to have a job? We would be much better off, if we actually borrowed he CCC idea and put most of the welfare collectors to work on infrastructure and cleanup. Save welfare for those who cannot actually work. Even Donnie would agree wholeheartedly with this post. Unions would fight it. |
Bringing jobs back
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:55:28 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: John H. wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:41:53 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 13:37:16 UTC-3, Bill wrote: True North wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 09:37:34 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:48:23 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:06:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:05:53 -0400, wrote: It turns out that the US steel industry shot themselves in the foot by not adopting new technology back in the 1950s while the rest of the world was doing it - very similar to what happened to the US auto industry back in the 1970s. It did not help the advancement of labor saving technology if they understood they still needed to employ the same number of people. == Certainly union agreements didn't help but It was more fundamental than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/steel-history-shows-how-america-lost-ground-to-europe Better, cheaper technology became widely available but US steel companies didn't invest in it for reasons that are not entirely clear. The only exception was Nucor that continues to do well, even in the face of foreign competition. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Cheaper technologies exist for the distribution of mail - like corner, multiple mail boxes. Who's fighting it? The unions, because more efficient delivery means fewer mailmen. The same would have been true of the steel industry, I believe. Up here a lot of seniors were upset about losing home delivery. Often enough they wouldn't be able to safely make it to a neighbourhood super mail box..especially during the winter. It was one of the election issues a couple years ago that trashed our then Conservative Govt. Why do we need 6day a week delivery? Heck 4 would be sufficient. All the real timely reports seem to come via email. We lost Saturday mail when I was a kid...or maybe high school. It's been 5 day a week door to door here in the city ever since. Right-wing trash is always eager to eliminate someone else?s job. Bull****. How much does that extra day cost us taxpayers? Those who actually pay taxes. Socialism failed everywhere it has been tried. Why should government, be an employer just to have a job? We would be much better off, if we actually borrowed he CCC idea and put most of the welfare collectors to work on infrastructure and cleanup. Save welfare for those who cannot actually work. Even Donnie would agree wholeheartedly with this post. Unions would fight it. === Absolutely, they would claim it was unfair exploitation of the unemployed or some such. It would have to be disguised as a training program or something similar. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com