One word missing from most economic debates is 'sustainability'. Obviously we can't go on increasing our global population and think that everything is OK, cos it isn't. We are increasing the population and using resources at an alarming rate. The population wants more and more stuff at little regard to the environment and as cheap as possible. What I refer to as the tourist mentality - first world services at third world prices. When are we all going to realise that this cannot continue and that we have to live in harmony with every thing else that is around us.

I have often wondered if this current economic crisis was something building up over years from Reaganomics-like policies. Not being an economist, I can't rightly say for sure, but my gut feeling is leaning towards it as being the cause. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the dismantling of organized labor, the destruction of the middle class, all in a country that used to make everything for itself and now sells us only imports at increasingly higher prices (the markup on products from China must be unbelievable). How did we let this happen?

I can't predict the future, but it ain't looking too good at this point.


Edited by progaeopteryx - December 14 2008 at 09:57

limeyrob wrote: One word missing from most economic debates is 'sustainability'. Obviously we can't go on increasing our global population and think that everything is OK, cos it isn't. We are increasing the population and using resources at an alarming rate. The population wants more and more stuff at little regard to the environment and as cheap as possible. What I refer to as the tourist mentality - first world services at third world prices. When are we all going to realise that this cannot continue and that we have to live in harmony with every thing else that is around us. I don't think any money should be given to the populace as all they will do is want to go out and buy more stuff - that is unless they can prove that they are going to spend it wisely.

Give your dog a HUGE bowl of food and then leave him alone for two weeks.  Tell him not to eat it all at once - to save it so he can last the whole two weeks.  What do you think he's gonna do?

If they can't pay the worker's pension and $75/hour wages, they're gonna go into the whole.  Plus, the leaders of the companies did a terrible job.  If you have unions demanding MORE than the company has, and managers that aren't doing their job right, then this is what happens.  It involves everyone, not just big evil corporate heads.

Slartibartfast wrote:    Since when is driving down wages a good idea?

It's always been this way.

debrewguy wrote: Just because I make a request in negotiations does not require you to accept. At a certain point, the big three could have said, short term pain for long term gain.

In case you didn't notice, every time they tried the unions would go on strike.

Slartibartfast wrote: jimmy_row wrote: ^ well considering that the unionized labor is a huge reason that the big 3 need a handout, I would doubt your assertion.  I think the global economy part is right on though...but there isn't much we can do about it - the packaging and shipping away of labor at the expense of quality and domestic production is just sort of what happens in this environment.  There will be huge consequences no matter what our politicians decide to do, so people will complain either way.  We seem to have an apocalypse-mentality about our society in general, which in turn fuels the economic downturn. Unionized labor is not the reason two of the big three are seeking a loan.  Since when is driving down wages a good idea?

Unfortunately, jimmy is right. Unionized labor has become such a clusterf**k over the last 20-30 years that unions have gone from being something necessary to protect workers' rights and assure fair and competitive wages to nothing more than a whole bunch of political red tape. And these days it always seems that the unions are demanding more, more, more when companies can't afford to pay $75/hr wages. When wages get too high, that means that some some of the factory workers are unfortunately going to lose their jobs, and oddly enough, it's often the fault of the people who are supposed to support the workers and provide backbone. It's an absolute disgrace to me. Sometimes I wonder if unions are any better than the Rebuplicans and Democrats these days.

Granted, unions are only a part of the problem. Like I said before, the only way for the big 3 to survive would be to declare bankruptcy and restructure, but the unions would never let them do that.

Running a company involves trying please different interests.  Stockholders, management, labor, suppliers, customers.  Everyone wants something and it can only truly work if none of the parties involved becomes overly greedy and you are selling what people actually want.  The Big 3 were short sighted when they gave away the house to the unions.  The unions were greedy but they thought they had to be.  And the care companies had cars to build and caved.  But this all happened back in the salad days when Japan was not a powerhouse in the auto industry and it seemed like Americans would always be buying cars non-stop.  The Big 3 are fairly slow moving when trying to conform to consumer demand.  They try to sell what people want, but people are stupid and buy cars too often and that are too extravagant.  Sooner or later, reality was going to set in and it has in a big way.  If the Big 3 would have been more conservative in expanding, shareholders would have been complaining that they should be selling more.  It is a fine line to walk.  People generally only see the short term and want to ride a wave without thinking about the long term cost.   But the people who think about the long term may not be around tomorrow because the competition is killing them today.

Lookout!!!! Shoes!!!!

I now return your to your regularly scheduled thread.


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 16 2008 at 07:09

Edited by Slartibartfast - December 16 2008 at 06:59