"Joe" wrote in message . ..
Exactly! What I love is this, I told Joe and Shelikoff that the war in
Iraq cost us 9 billion a day. They can't figure out how that could
possibly be true. So far, I've not told them, waiting to see if they
ever stop and think about that $800 billion. Doesn't take a rocket
scientist!

Enlighten us Kevin.

Clue: How many days did the war last, when Bush officially called the
war over?
Clue: How much money was spent per day directly on the war?
Clue: How much has the war actually cost us for such things as pre-war
readiness, etc.? Current estimates are $200 billion.
Clue: Add to this the $800 billion that the Pentagon seems to have
"misplaced".

Now, are you and Shelikoff even STARTING to get it? Doubtful.

It is a natural thing for businesses to want to increase productivity
while lowering costs.

Read this, it makes sense.

Common Sense: Labor vs. Management

Problem:

1.1. Management wants more productivity for less pay, Labor wants
more pay for less productivity.
2.2. The U.S. productivity, while highest in the world, has been
stagnant in recent years.
3.3. The U.S. is a capital intensive country, and with free trade,
that means that rewards go to the intensive factor (HO
theory), leaving labor, the scarce factor, to fight against a
market that is constantly exerting downward pressure on
wages.
4.4. U.S. industry must abide by the law of one price, or else go
out of business. This forces labor intensive industries to
either get more productivity out of their domestic work force or
transfer production to labor intensive countries.
5.5. The U.S. has lost many manufacturing jobs and industries to
foreign competition.

Solution:
Privatize unions. Organize them like employment agencies. Contracts
could be based on a lump-sum for a given level of
output. For instance, the auto industry could base a pay scale on the
average of the labor cost per auto of three competing
countries like Japan, Germany, and England. Lets say 20% of the cost
of a car is labor. The auto company would then contract
with the union for X# of cars. The labor union would then be given a
lump sum to distribute as it saw fit. If the union could do it
with fewer workers they get a higher average pay. Thus there is an
incentive to be more productive, AND REWARDED
FOR IT. There could also be a quality incentive based on warrantee
claims.

Benefits:
Labor controls their own destiny, they " own " the union in a
financial and voting sense, not just voting. Each member owns
shares in the union, each shares in the profits. The union would have
an incentive to increase the productivity of each member
and remove members that bring down the average output per worker, and
thus everyone's average wage. The union would also
have an incentive to replace the nonproductive with the productive,
creating a highly efficient globally competitive work force.
There is an incentive for productivity by having the worker have a
financial interest in the company for which they work. They
elect officers, choose staffing levels, and control membership. They
can also set their own productivity requirements for
membership. Business would have a fair, globally competitive, average
labor cost per unit of output, based on an international
average. They would also have reduced overhead by eliminating a large
part of their staffing, payroll, labor contract lawyer
fees, and other payroll and staffing expenses. This would result in an
improved competitive position, no strikes, greater
cooperation with labor, and the ability to select their preferred "
employment agency."

This could be taken further and privatize the entire production line
and employee benefits. The union could be given a lump sum
to build and maintain the production line. Once again, the sum would
be based on the average cost of competing countries. If
the union decides for a more ergonomic improvements and unrequired
safety devices, fine, but they now have a financial
interest is that decision. The union gets to choose their desired
level of safety and comfort in the work place. If they choose
more 15min breaks, fine, but they now have a financial interest in it.
The union could also be given a lump sum for their
pensions; no more unfunded pensions. They could invest their pension
money as they see fit. They could also be given a lump
sum to provide their desired employee benefits. In all these cases the
union can either provide the benefits or distribute the
money as it sees fit.

Benefits:

1.1. More union control of their destiny.
2.2. Increased competitiveness and productivity of the U.S. work
force.
3.3. Higher wages for labor.
4.4. Wages are tied to productivity, i.e., variable cost. No more "
sticky wages."
5.5. No strikes.
6.6. No incentive to drive the cost structure on a company up with
unnecessary breaks and excessive safety regulations.
7.7. Labor and Management base their contracts on international
averages, i.e., it is fair, not on bargaining strength or skill
of their lawyers.
8.8. Decreased labor/management strife.
9.9. No more unfunded pensions.
10.10. Increased ability to long term plan due to established values
used in contracting.
11.11. Greater long term survivability of the U.S. industry.
12.12. A great reduction in the companies overhead costs, i.e., the
company becomes more efficient.

Costs:

1.1. Labor must now compete and increase productivity. There is now
an incentive to eliminate the "free rider" who is
sitting-in, rather than, pulling the " wagon ".
2.2. Management must give up control of a large portion of the
production process.

This solution is an attempt to solve the current counter productive
position of labor vs. management that has led to a decrease in
U.S. competitiveness and industrial base. It requires cooperation and
compromise on both sides, labor and management. Each
side must give up a little. The loss to each side, however, is less
than what they gain. There is a net gain by both parties. This is
a market oriented position, because as anyone can see, the current
method of arguing with the market has chased a lot of jobs
across the boarder. This approach is doing little to stop the exodus,
which has only been worsened by the fall in the peso and
the passage of NAFTA.

If you agree with this or any part of this article please forward it
to Newspapers letters to the editors, congressmen, senators,
or anyone else who might also be interested. Help keep America working
and the jobs at home.

Marx was wrong in that he failed to make a connection between " from
each according to their ability " and "to each according
to their need ". Sounds good on paper but where is the incentive to
increase productivity. This is an outline to create a nation of
free-riders. Why work hard when your benefits are fixed and any
increase in your own productivity will only go to provide for
those who are not working as hard?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------