Outsourcing is caused by liberal policies and unions mamwad, holy shit you're retarded. Minimum wage and unions create outsourcing to countries that don't have those things
Not when unionism is combined with protectionist policies (as in social democracy) or it's end goal is to takeover control of industry (radical unionism). Yes, companies will go elsewhere if you let them. The key is to either tax the shit out of unnecessary imports or allow the workers to expropriate the facilities if the owners shut the doors and leave them idle.
That way, you don't have laborers working for pennies in death traps and you still have employment.
It's funny that you think factory workers could run the closed factories on their own. If running that factory were profitable, the jobs wouldn't have been outsourced. "Working for pennies in death traps" is a better alternative than the current state of Detroit. Detroit is a fine example of how left wing policies meant to aid the people actually end up hurting them
Workers run factories all over the world. They are called worker cooperatives. Spain's third largest company is a worker cooperative. Take a look on the grocery store. A lot of organic food is made by cooperatives. Some craft breweries, too.
It's not like they don't hire executives. The workers just take the place of investors and manage the surplus collectively.
My point wasn't that they didn't have the ability to run a factory, it was that the factory couldn't be profitable if it was abandoned by a company. They abandoned the factory because they would no longer turn enough of a profit for their investment costs. This would include worker wages and raw materials. The workers would end up making low wages anyway just to keep the factory running, it defeats the entire purpose.
Not necessarily. Many businesses operate on a 3% or lower profit margin. 3% isn't "considerably less." You're vastly overestimating how much money investors make. If a company can operate a factory on even a 1% profit, they will run that factory. They're not going to abandon a multi-million dollar factory that is making them money. They will only abandon it if they are losing money, when it is no longer profitable. A factory that is no longer profitable can't be run by anyone unless they can reduce operating costs, and the only real way to do that is to lower wages.
Look at it this way. An investor invests a million dollars into a factory. His options are to make 1% on his investment, or shut down the factory and make 0%. He will choose 1% every time. He's not getting a good deal on his investment, because of the low profit margin, but he's making some money nonetheless. If he was losing money instead of making it, he's going to shut the factory down. He might try to reduce operating costs in both of these situations, but that is simply not possible as wages are fixed by unions/minimum wage.
They will certainly abandon a factory if they can make more by investing overseas, even if they are still making a profit.
Besides, that's where cooperative federations come in. Too busy to discuss specifics right now, but the general plan is to create a self sufficient cooperative economy.
Corporations don't like abandoning factories unless they have to. Even if they could make a little more money somewhere else, they're not going to build a brand new factory to make the same exact product they already have a factory for. Abandoning a multi million dollar investment that still makes money is not logical nor a reality. Just giving old, inefficient, and expensive to operate factories to people won't solve their problems. Giving incentive for corporations to build new factories in their area will
If you think corporate welfare is the solution, (to put it bluntly) you're being a class cuck. If you're a wage earner, that is.
It does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of the globalization of capital, which creates a global race to the bottom. It will turn us into a third world banana republic.
The very idea that jobs are gifted from upon high is the problem.
The thing is, mamwad, you're being incredibly idealistic. You're putting forward a solution that simply will not work and calling me a cuck for supporting the tried and true solution. "Corporate Welfare" (progressive buzzword for not taxing the everloving shit out of job-creating corporations) and making lower wages is a better alternative than the current state of Detroit, and many other cities affected by the outsourcing of jobs. When you try to have it all you may lose everything. Try to help the factory workers with progressive policies, and you only end up losing them their jobs. That is simply the unfortunate reality of this world
Well, I proposed two solutions. One is tried and true (protectionism) and the other is radical, but has been tried in Argentina. You're also not understanding that the workers can simply liquidate the assets and start a new business if it's not viable.
Protectionism is viable but dangerous as it restricts free trade. Trump is big on protectionism so we'll get to see how that goes. If the assets were liquidatable, the company who owned those assets would have already sold them. No one wants to buy unprofitable factories, and no one wants to abandon a factory that they could sell. You seem to think that corporations are just leaving free money behind when they outsource. Simply not the case.
Protectionism is viable but dangerous as it restricts free trade.
Why is that dangerous. Globalized free trade is dangerous.
If the assets were liquidatable, the company who owned those assets would have already sold them.
Not if the union locks them out. What do you think "expropriation" means? If the corporation chooses to shutter a factory, the union steps in and claims ownership before anything can be sold. Or if that's too much like stealing for you, then you can have the government simply penalize companies for outsourcing, and they can use that money to subsidize cooperatives.
Why is that dangerous. Globalized free trade is dangerous.
Was gonna take the time to write a long response to that but decided not to. All I can say is we'll see how Trump's extra tariffs work out for us.
If the corporation chooses to shutter a factory, the union steps in and claims ownership before anything can be sold.
So many things wrong here, I've already explained why expropriating factories for the workers just won't work. Corporations don't abandon profitable factories, and thinking that everything can magically be solve be seizing the means of production is straight out of the communist manifesto. Your solutions just aren't realistic.
view the rest of the comments →
mamwad ago
Detroit was destroyed by outsourcing and union busting.
Altbottom_Leaf ago
It couldn't have been the Democratic leadership causing those things, oh god no
mamwad ago
Not in the city. Those were taken care of on a national level.
Altbottom_Leaf ago
Outsourcing is caused by liberal policies and unions mamwad, holy shit you're retarded. Minimum wage and unions create outsourcing to countries that don't have those things
mamwad ago
Not when unionism is combined with protectionist policies (as in social democracy) or it's end goal is to takeover control of industry (radical unionism). Yes, companies will go elsewhere if you let them. The key is to either tax the shit out of unnecessary imports or allow the workers to expropriate the facilities if the owners shut the doors and leave them idle.
That way, you don't have laborers working for pennies in death traps and you still have employment.
Altbottom_Leaf ago
It's funny that you think factory workers could run the closed factories on their own. If running that factory were profitable, the jobs wouldn't have been outsourced. "Working for pennies in death traps" is a better alternative than the current state of Detroit. Detroit is a fine example of how left wing policies meant to aid the people actually end up hurting them
mamwad ago
Workers run factories all over the world. They are called worker cooperatives. Spain's third largest company is a worker cooperative. Take a look on the grocery store. A lot of organic food is made by cooperatives. Some craft breweries, too.
It's not like they don't hire executives. The workers just take the place of investors and manage the surplus collectively.
Altbottom_Leaf ago
My point wasn't that they didn't have the ability to run a factory, it was that the factory couldn't be profitable if it was abandoned by a company. They abandoned the factory because they would no longer turn enough of a profit for their investment costs. This would include worker wages and raw materials. The workers would end up making low wages anyway just to keep the factory running, it defeats the entire purpose.
mamwad ago
Worker coops don't need to pay investors, they just need to cover worker salaries. That makes for considerably less overhead.
Altbottom_Leaf ago
Not necessarily. Many businesses operate on a 3% or lower profit margin. 3% isn't "considerably less." You're vastly overestimating how much money investors make. If a company can operate a factory on even a 1% profit, they will run that factory. They're not going to abandon a multi-million dollar factory that is making them money. They will only abandon it if they are losing money, when it is no longer profitable. A factory that is no longer profitable can't be run by anyone unless they can reduce operating costs, and the only real way to do that is to lower wages.
Look at it this way. An investor invests a million dollars into a factory. His options are to make 1% on his investment, or shut down the factory and make 0%. He will choose 1% every time. He's not getting a good deal on his investment, because of the low profit margin, but he's making some money nonetheless. If he was losing money instead of making it, he's going to shut the factory down. He might try to reduce operating costs in both of these situations, but that is simply not possible as wages are fixed by unions/minimum wage.
mamwad ago
They will certainly abandon a factory if they can make more by investing overseas, even if they are still making a profit.
Besides, that's where cooperative federations come in. Too busy to discuss specifics right now, but the general plan is to create a self sufficient cooperative economy.
Altbottom_Leaf ago
Corporations don't like abandoning factories unless they have to. Even if they could make a little more money somewhere else, they're not going to build a brand new factory to make the same exact product they already have a factory for. Abandoning a multi million dollar investment that still makes money is not logical nor a reality. Just giving old, inefficient, and expensive to operate factories to people won't solve their problems. Giving incentive for corporations to build new factories in their area will
mamwad ago
If you think corporate welfare is the solution, (to put it bluntly) you're being a class cuck. If you're a wage earner, that is.
It does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of the globalization of capital, which creates a global race to the bottom. It will turn us into a third world banana republic.
The very idea that jobs are gifted from upon high is the problem.
Altbottom_Leaf ago
The thing is, mamwad, you're being incredibly idealistic. You're putting forward a solution that simply will not work and calling me a cuck for supporting the tried and true solution. "Corporate Welfare" (progressive buzzword for not taxing the everloving shit out of job-creating corporations) and making lower wages is a better alternative than the current state of Detroit, and many other cities affected by the outsourcing of jobs. When you try to have it all you may lose everything. Try to help the factory workers with progressive policies, and you only end up losing them their jobs. That is simply the unfortunate reality of this world
mamwad ago
Well, I proposed two solutions. One is tried and true (protectionism) and the other is radical, but has been tried in Argentina. You're also not understanding that the workers can simply liquidate the assets and start a new business if it's not viable.
Altbottom_Leaf ago
Protectionism is viable but dangerous as it restricts free trade. Trump is big on protectionism so we'll get to see how that goes. If the assets were liquidatable, the company who owned those assets would have already sold them. No one wants to buy unprofitable factories, and no one wants to abandon a factory that they could sell. You seem to think that corporations are just leaving free money behind when they outsource. Simply not the case.
mamwad ago
Why is that dangerous. Globalized free trade is dangerous.
Not if the union locks them out. What do you think "expropriation" means? If the corporation chooses to shutter a factory, the union steps in and claims ownership before anything can be sold. Or if that's too much like stealing for you, then you can have the government simply penalize companies for outsourcing, and they can use that money to subsidize cooperatives.
Altbottom_Leaf ago
Was gonna take the time to write a long response to that but decided not to. All I can say is we'll see how Trump's extra tariffs work out for us.
So many things wrong here, I've already explained why expropriating factories for the workers just won't work. Corporations don't abandon profitable factories, and thinking that everything can magically be solve be seizing the means of production is straight out of the communist manifesto. Your solutions just aren't realistic.