Hostess Shrugged

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='vontar' timestamp='1353215100' post='847469']
I still find it hard to believe you can go bankrupt selling food in America.
[/quote]I think it happens when you can't sell your product for enough of a profit to cover the costs of your union contracts.

[Oh Shoot]

Y'all know why there are no Kroger stores in Chattanooga, right?

(20 years ago or more Kroger sold 'em all to Bi-Lo rather than meet union demands).

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353209191' post='847424']
Lester, no one is protecting incompetent USA management. They tend to go down the drain just as fast, or faster.[/quote]

That part of my comment was about the double-edged sword of tariffs and protectionism. Ferinstance the usa auto and other industries were definitely being protected from managerial incompetence before reagan's unilateral economic disarmament and then clinton's giant sucking sound. Before that, usa management had several thousand bucks of advantage against better-made jap cars. So they had a price advantage of pushing off shoddy vehicles on the public.

So it was a shame after reagan and clinton helped other nations eat our lunch, but otherwise protected product would have got progressively shoddier without the competition.

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353209191' post='847424'][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]You can't really get good bread from China, maybe Twinkies, but not bread.[/font][/color][/quote]

China makes an amazing amount of foodstuffs. You can't hardly buy dog treats not made in china. I've been in the habit of eating sardines and smoked oysters and other canned fish because it is cheaper and higher in beneficial oils than spensive salmon. But the other week was at wally world and noticed many of the brands of canned fish are now made in china. Previously the "good stuff" was norway or germany, and the "cheaper stuff" was morocco and it wasn't as good as norway but not all that bad. Now I never got poisoned by moroccan canned fish, but damned if I'll eat chinese canned fish. I don't even feed the dawg made-in-china food. Chinese will work cheaper than moroccans? Geeze.

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353212111' post='847446']
Someone else will buy the parts of the company they want, and their won't be a union. Spin it anyway you want, HvyMtl. Those guys who struck still have no job. The Teamsters weren't the only union involved in this, either. The other guys wanted to keep their jobs.
[/quote]

The brand name is worth more than the factories. They will make the stuff in mehico or china or elsewhere and leave the USA factories to rot.

C

[RobertNashville]

There are things I'll buy and use if they are made in China or Mexico; food isn't one of those things no matter what brand name is on the package.

[SonnyCrockett]

sad that they went under,unions suck but the company was also a mismanaged mess -
Really I am not a fan of the product,wonder bread,twinkies and dingdongs really sucked and were bottom of the barrel for
health and quality .. They will more than likely reopen under another name with a different backer or corp umbrella and it will be non union.

Who lost? The strikers lost,the unions lost but im certain twinkies will be back , hopefully they will bring back the
original recipe

[DaveTN]

I would guess someone like Wal-Mart or Kroger is in negotiations to buy the company. We will see.

[Hershmeister]

[quote name='Lester Weevils' timestamp='1353198396' post='847352']I've belonged to some unions and have not been impressed, but also agree that "fear of unions" causes some companies to treat wage slaves better than they otherwise would be inclined to do. The union is the "boogie man" which enforces more humane treatment in non-union shops.

I think the falling-apart of usa industry has a great deal to do with incompetents at the top. So when they bail, perhaps we could call it "the three stooges shrugged". Floating to the ground on golden parachutes.

Idiot union thugs negotiating against morons in management.

Though apparently Hostess' demise is not directly related to foreign competition from twinkie clones, it just seems to have something to do with the giant sucking sound. Surely the factories would be profitable enough to compensate for woeful management if operated in Mexico or China, or at least if the factories in the USA could operate with illegal immigrant labor.

Once you go for the free trade, it is thermodynamics, boyles law. If one pressure tank contains a billion chinese willing to work for $1 per day, and another pressure tank contains 300 million usa citizens willing to work for $200 per day-- Open the valve and after the pressure equalizes you eventually get 1.3 billion people willing to work for $46.92 per day.

OTOH if you protect incompetent usa management, it just slacks more and gets more incompetent, so keeping the valve closed ain't so great either.[/quote]



Lester - your boyles law example assumes a fixed pie (no pun intended)

As the Chinese workers make more money their wage expectations grow.

[leroy]

[quote name='Hershmeister' timestamp='1353244409' post='847528']
Lester - your boyles law example assumes a fixed pie (no pun intended)

As the Chinese workers make more money their wage expectations grow.
[/quote]

The "fixed pie" thing is very important. When ya have a government that assumes the "fixed pie" model (...as does nobama and all other socialist leanin jackasses....); ya tend to kill the means for makin the pie bigger. That is:... gettin up off of producers (...think "war on coal" here, union work rules (...think hurricane sandy and long island....), forcing unionization on "right to work" states, etc...
Those moves either makes the pie fixed or makes it smaller.

I think that today, it makes the pie smaller because of lester's analysis of the multinational companies movin to more business friendly locations (....think jeep thinkin about movin from cleveland to china here...). We've (....the collecive "we"; both demorat and republican administrations; much more with nobama, however...)...) been whoopin up on business for a pretty long time. The chickins are commin home to roost. That's the "world economy" suckin sound ya hear --- jobs movin to other countries because the colletive we and our political pimps are meddlin in the ecomomy and pickin "winners and loosers".

All those who work for a company and are represented by a union need to remember that it makes no difference what the wage scale and venefits packages are if there aint any jobs. Remember, Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" says that ya create wealth via the capitalist model. We here in amerika tend to meddle too much in it. It's the sport of both parties.
leroy

[DaveTN]

[quote name='leroy' timestamp='1353247921' post='847557']
forcing unionization on "right to work" states, etc...
[/quote]
Who is forcing unionization on anyone?

[leroy]

Dave: RE: This question: ...."Who is forcing unionization on anyone?..."

Remember the NLRB and Boeing in SC? SC is a "right to work" state. An accomodation wuz reached here because Boeing is a federal contractor; and they negotiated with the NLRB and reached an "accomodation" (...read that: the feds told boeing they would turn the big contracts off if they didnt seek an accomodation....). The SC boeing plant lost work and Boeing agreed to send more work back to the Seattle, WA plant that is unionized and had struck. That effectively took work from SC workers and send to work to striking workers in Seattle. I predict ya will see some fighting pretty quick over this in other "right to work" states. Think "card check" here instead of "secret ballot" on unionization. What's goin on now is just another round of meddling and union patronage.

The original "forcing unionization" thing manifested itself in 1933 when the great god roosevelt came down on the side of the unions in the west virginia coalfields. He did, in fact, force unionization on those who did not want it.

leroy

[DaveTN]

[quote name='leroy' timestamp='1353249797' post='847580']
Dave: RE: This question: ...."Who is forcing unionization on anyone?..."

Remember the NLRB and Boeing in SC? SC is a "right to work" state. An accomodation wuz reached here because Boeing is a federal contractor; and they negotiated with the NLRB and reached an "accomodation" (...read that: the feds told boeing they would turn the big contracts off if they didnt seek an accomodation....). The SC boeing plant lost work and Boeing agreed to send more work back to the Seattle, WA plant that is unionized and had struck. That effectively took work from SC workers and send to work to striking workers in Seattle. I predict ya will see some fighting pretty quick over this in other "right to work" states. Think "card check" here instead of "secret ballot" on unionization. What's goin on now is just another round of meddling and union patronage.

The original "forcing unionization" thing manifested itself in 1933 when the great god roosevelt came down on the side of the unions in the west virginia coalfields. He did, in fact, force unionization on those who did not want it.

leroy
[/quote]
Boeing allowed internal documentation to fall into the hands of the NLRB that showed the SC plant was being built in retaliation for the union exercising their rights.

1800 to 3000 union jobs were going to be lost because of the move. The union was prepared to bring Boeing to its knees to keep that from happening. Boeing knew that before they built the plant and rolled the dice anyway.

No one is making anyone join a union. The NLRB was reacting to union breaking tactics being used by Boeing. They have their SC non-union plant.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The pie isn't fixed but on the other hand, may not be infinitely expandable, and also obviously has velocity limits in expansion, so even if infinitely expandable can't "turn on a dime." The only way I see the pie being more than modestly expandable is with new technology and a commercial-scale move into space, which doesn't seem likely to happen in a forseeable time frame unless it comes as a surprise when it happens.

The boyle's law example figures might low-ball initial chinese wages and also high-ball initial usa wages, but given the example numbers I was kinda surprised at the result unless I figured it all wrong (which is quite possible). With a fixed pie, pressure equalization would result in 47-fold increase of chinese wage with "only" a four-fold decrease in the usa wage. IOW, an equalized pressure much higher than I'd expected, though still very disappointing to usa wage expectations.

I dunno how it will shake out, but opening a valve between tanks is a sucking sound as perceived from the high pressure side.

Ferinstance, consider Japan that has been economically kicking the world's butt for decades, even as they have been experiencing a 20 year recession. IOW even with the economic dominance the pie hasn't "comfortably grown" from perspective of the average japanese fella.

Perhaps one "limit to growth" in China, is how much world manufacturing can they scarf up before chinese start keeling over in the streets from air pollution. I hear the air is already "iffy" barely tolerable in spots.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The value of a wage is dependent on the cost of living in a society. If you use a static pie like that, you haven't
factored in the cost of living in one part of the equation. China is having problems moving into the world market,
but it is, or was climbing, and the people in China are expecting a better wage for their labor, just like Americans.

I like smoked oysters and I hope they aren't canned in China.

GM has a large amount of their production moved or moving to China. What's that about? I thought our taxpayer
funded bailout took care of them. Must be the unions got theirs and said okey-dokey to the loss of future employees.

I wonder how many airplanes will be built in SC? I'll bet it's none. Didn't Boeing scrap the SC plant? I don't understand
the mentality of anyone questioning why any company would not try to reduce labor costs, like Boeing. To Hell with
the NLRB! What I remember about Boeing in SC, people were lined up begging for those jobs, and at the wage Boeing
was willing to pay. More government intervention where none was reasonable. The labor laws in this country are out
of date for the changing demands of a world economy. When a model is assuming prices will always increase and wages
will always increase, all it does is make the market that much closer to extinction.

Robber Barons were replaced by communists and we built our model to go forward like Marx wanted.

Take the thugs away from unionism and I might change my mind on them, but I haven't seen any good or great things
come from them, lately, except to try and destroy what's left of our economy. Unions were infected almost from their
inception, by corruption and it has only gotten worse.

[DaveTN]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353256486' post='847659']

I wonder how many airplanes will be built in SC? I'll bet it's none. Didn't Boeing scrap the SC plant?
[/quote]
They recently doubled their rate and are now building five Dreamliner 787’s a month.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

In SC? I thought that was tooled up in Seattle? Didn't know that.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Rumor is Bimbo (the Mexican corporation) will buy the brands.

Sunshine Bakers, according to the box of Cheez Its I have, seems to be part of Kellogg's NA co.

Here is the deal on Unions. They were started due to the fact companies would ruin people's lives and toss them to the side, during the industrial age. They would litterally kill the worker and say "tough" to the worker's family. Like the weekends? No child labor? 40 hour work week, with over time? Safety requirements on the job? Yup, all due to unions.

More recently, around the 1950's criminal elements infiltrated the Unions. The mob, the Daleys, etc. They were then cleaned out, mostly, in the late 1970's to 1980's.

Now, if you look at the Unions, in many cases, they are not real unions, but are controlled by the businesses they work with. Example: Many transportation unions. One I dealt with, on one of my last jobs, was picked out specificly for the purpose, by the CEO of the company. It was a sham. Did nothing to protect the worker, played lip service to them, and basically relieved the company of certain benefit expenses. But hey, there is a union to protect you! (wink, wink.) According to scores (prolly around 200 or so) Railroad workers I have talked this over with, they claim the same is now true about their union. The union bosses approve what the railroad wants, and they get huge salaries in return. Not a good sign.

Are there needs for Unions? Yes, in some cases.
A good example of a company deserving a union, due to their proven criminal activities, such as mandating work off the clock (for no pay) and paying lower wages for females doing the same work, and using tax payer funded safety nets to enable their workers to eek out a living (even printing "how to get" info on the check stubs, and employee handouts for HUD housing, food stamps, medicaid / and state health care) and hiring "contract" employees who were illegal aliens, is Walmart. They deserve a strong union to come in and force them to work within the laws of this land.

Power corrupts, proven by both the CEOs with their golden parachutes, and the union boss who gets rewarded by the labor of the union members to play lip service. Edited November 18, 2012 by HvyMtl

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, once upon a time, and their usefulness is about to the extinction phase.

As to your example of making a worker work off the clock, there are laws to cover that. I doubt a union of any kind,
including railroad unions, would do anything to thwart that. And you say unions are still beneficial? They are money
takers and nothing else, nowadays.

Wage and Hour Division, Dept of Labor covers said violations.

Wal Mart would close their doors if that happened. If people go to a place to get a job and accept the terms of
employment, why would you wish a union on them, since you know so much about them? The damn union dues
would probably take care of any raise the employee gets. All you are creating is another SEIU for Wal Mart
employees and would cause a loss of jobs.
If you think Wal Mart is so criminal, I certainly hope you don't shop there. Not that I care for them, but I wouldn't
wish a union on anyone. They are an overgrown version of the Woolworth's and the old shops like that up and
down Main Street. Those employees didn't get any better wage, even considering inflation adjustment. Those are
low paying jobs anywhere.

The union boss's you refer to are paid by the union dues. Their salaries are posted on several sites on the
interwebz and local chairmen for railroad unions get compensation for union activity from union dues, also.
That is a myth about the huge salaries and other perks, to my knowledge, paid by the company. As far as I
can tell, all the waste and fraud paid for is on the employee's back, unless you know something for a fact that I
evidently don't.

There may have been a need, during the era of Robber Barons, but it has diminished to where they are only
money takers.

[leroy]

Dave: RE: This. [quote].....No one is making anyone join a union. The NLRB was reacting to union breaking tactics being used by Boeing. They have their SC non-union plant. .... [/quote]

South Carolina is a "right to work state". We can quibble about the details; but the way i see things; the South Carolina thing wuz nothin more than a chance to punish a "right to work" state and help a "closed shop" state under the guise of "labor fairness"; which is baloney anyway; because all government contracts of any size require either a "closed shop" or a "prevailing wage" based on union scale (...the Bacon-Davis act....).

I'm even willing to grant that Boeing wuz engaging in union busting activities. All that bein said; you can bet that the NLRB wuz doing what they were doin for political reasons; because that's what they do. The NLRB is nothin more than a congregation of mad dog political hacks makin the best of any opportunities they might have to push their political enemies around under the guise of "partnering with labor". If they happended to do the "right thing" (....according to the union model....); you can bet they did it for the wrong reasons. It's nothin more than a "scorched earth" opportunist political move; pure and simple. Nothin more than advancing the union political model at best; or punishing enemies of the state at worst.

The fact is, and has been, that the federal government favors union membership and has since 1933. This is a fact, not conjecture. The reason: its politically expedient--- it used to, and still does buy votes. Even with the large government meddling into private company affairs; union membership today is in the neighborhood of 7% or so (....excluding government type unions--state, local, federal...). We've been havin a referendum on union membership over the last 80 or so years. The unions gained members thru the 50's but have been steadily loosin them for the last 60 or so years. The high wuz at about 36%; its now 7% (...about 13%, if ya count government unions....). I aint beating ya or anybody else up that belongs to the union. Anyone may belong to the union or not if they want to (...presuming one is available...); but dont demand that one be set up or meddle in the business decisions of the companies doin business; nor tell companies where they are gonna do business.

The NLRB is nothin more than a lapdog for whatever the current political regieme wants to do. The only reason that the NLRB could meddle in the Boeing thing is that Boeing is a government contractor; and depends almost exclusively on the government for it's business. The fact is that the SC plant would have had to pay the "equivalent wage scale" for non-union work in SC that it would have paid in Washington state due to the closed shop thing due to the terms of the Bacon-Davis Act to fulfill the terms of the government contracts they would work on. There is no federal contract of any size (....certainly not airplane size...) that does not include a requirement to involk the terms of the Davis-Bacon Act which essentially mandated a "union equivalent" wage; it's simply called a "prevailing wage". Wages (...and contract cost....) would have been a wash either way; all things considered. This Boeing thing was, indeed, the NLRB flexing its muscles and pickin winners and loosers. My guess is that it wuz punishing a republican administration in SC and rewarding a demorat administration in WA. I predict you will see more of it.

I also predict you will see more attempts by the federal government to mitigate or meddle in the "right to work" thing; because it's repeal is the holy grail of the labor movement; and the demorats are beholdin to big labor.

Here is an interestin discussion of the "right to work" thing: [url="http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/business-law-advisor/unions-right-work-states-vs-non-right-work-st-0"]http://www.sba.gov/c...right-work-st-0[/url] .

Here is a list of "right to work" states:
[quote]....Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming...[/quote]

Notice there aint any "blue" right to work states (...outside of Indaina: [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/us/indiana-becomes-right-to-work-state.html..."]http://www.nytimes.c...k-state.html...[/url]).

leroy

[Will Carry]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353192652' post='847328']
Will, how do you know any of this? Were you one of those laid off?

I don't have anything with collective bargaining but it isn't the workers who came up with the product, and it's certainly not up
to them as to how it's marketed. From the stories I read, most of the employees voted to take a pay cut and whatever else to
keep the business rolling, but one union voted to not accept the terms offered by the company. I also doubt the executives
will make a dime going through bankruptcy. A bargaining in good faith is just that. How can a company invest in new technology
if it can't pay its existing bills? They can't just keep on borrowing to make a payroll. That's too much like the federal government.

What does China or Ronald Reagan have to do with this? Companies are failing or reducing workforce all over this country right
now, and Hostess' problems have been known for a while. They have been keeping the doors open for possibly too long, already.

I guess I'm what you call a blue collar worker, also, and I have to go through contract negotiations, just like they did. If it meant to
keep the doors open or close, I would have most likely gone along, just to have a job.

It's the company's responsibility to turn a profit. It's the employees' job to do their job at a reasonable wage. No one said they had
any other right, other than what they negotiated, and, if the company had negotiated in good faith and the union rejected it, all
bets are off. They(unions) were bluffing in their negotiations because they didn't really think the company would close it's doors.
Their bluff was called. No one is trashing unions, well give me a moment and I might, but the tail only wags the dog in Hollywood.
[/quote]

I liked your response. Hostess was doomed before the strike even happened. Blaming unions has become a knee jerk reaction, we do it without even thinking.
Even if the unions had not gone on strike, the Twinky's days were numbered. Cutting employee benefits and wages would not have saved the company.
The owners of the company will sell the rights, and get rich, to a company that is capable of making a profit off the brands (Mexican).

[url="http://recessappointment.com/2012/11/16/hostess-a-lesson-in-blaming-unions-for-your-failures/"]http://recessappoint...-your-failures/[/url] Edited November 18, 2012 by Will Carry

[DaveTN]

[quote name='leroy' timestamp='1353273979' post='847775']
Dave: RE: This.

South Carolina is a "right to work state".

Nothin more than advancing the union political model at best; or punishing enemies of the state at worst.

[/quote]
"Right to Work”, “Enemies of the State”, my gosh no one is forcing anyone to join a union.

The Boeing plant is SC is up, running, doing well, and still non-union. Yes, Boeing had problems, but it wasn’t because the NLRB or any branch on the government stepped on them. It was because their own employees found out about their union busting plans and threatened a strike Boeing did not want to go through.


[quote name='leroy' timestamp='1353273979' post='847775']

The only reason that the NLRB could meddle in the Boeing thing is that Boeing is a government contractor; and depends almost exclusively on the government for it's business. [/quote]

Nonsense. 70% of Boeings sales are overseas and Boeing is one of the largest exporters of manufactured goods in the U.S.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

In that man's opinion, Hostess was doomed from the outset, but it is based on a timeline of his own. The
employees still chose to make the final decision on other's jobs, not in agreement. Now they are all out of
work. Maybe they were running it into the ground. I don't doubt it, but I wouldn't go on strike to help kill it.
It's still the tail wagging the dog. It also could be that it was one way for the family owned business to save
face. Somehow, that doesn't make sense, either.

Out of bankruptcy usually comes several smaller companies that employ, also.

[gjohnsoniv]

http://9gag.com/gag/5863961

[leroy]

Dave:
[quote]....Nonsense (...[i].to the "big government contractor thing -- leroy addition[/i]....). 70% of Boeings sales are overseas and Boeing is one of the largest exporters of manufactured goods in the U.S. [/quote]

Check this out:
[quote]
[b] Revenues as Reported[/b]

[b]Boeing Co., Income Statement, Revenues[/b]

USD $ in millions
[url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Spreadsheet/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues.xls"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/spreadsheet-24x24.png[/img][/url] [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Spreadsheet/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues.ods"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/open-office-24x24.png[/img][/url]
12 months ended Dec 31, 2011 Dec 31, 2010 Dec 31, 2009 Dec 31, 2008 Dec 31, 2007 [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Chart/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues/5-8-5-3"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/chart-bar-16x16.png[/img][/url] Commercial Airplanes 36,171 31,834 34,051 28,263 33,386 [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Chart/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues/5-8-5-4"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/chart-bar-16x16.png[/img][/url] Boeing Military Aircraft 14,947 14,238 14,057 13,492 13,685 [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Chart/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues/1-2-7-7-5"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/chart-bar-16x16.png[/img][/url] Network & Space Systems 8,673 9,455 10,877 11,338 11,696 [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Chart/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues/1-2-7-7-6"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/chart-bar-16x16.png[/img][/url] Global Services & Support 8,356 8,250 8,727 7,217 6,699 [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Chart/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues/1-2-7-7-7"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/chart-bar-16x16.png[/img][/url] Boeing Defense, Space & Security 31,976 31,943 33,661 32,047 32,080 [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Chart/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues/1-2-7-7-8"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/chart-bar-16x16.png[/img][/url] Boeing Capital Corporation 532 639 660 703 815 [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Chart/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues/1-2-7-7-9"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/chart-bar-16x16.png[/img][/url] Other segment 138 138 165 567 280 [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Chart/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues/1-2-7-8-0"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/chart-bar-16x16.png[/img][/url] Unallocated items and eliminations (82) (248) (256) (671) (174) [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Chart/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues/Revenues-Ending-Balance"][img]http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/images/chart-bar-16x16.png[/img][/url] [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/Knowledge-Base/Revenues"]Revenues[/url] 68,735 64,306 68,281 60,909 66,387
Source: Boeing Co. Annual Reports
[/quote]

Got it from here: [url="http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co/Analysis/Revenues"]http://www.stock-ana...alysis/Revenues[/url]

Check the math for 2011. US gubmt business: 31,976. Commercial planes: 36,171. Total; 68,735. 46.5% gubmt business.

I dont know about you; but it looks pretty like a pretty big part of their business to me.

leroy

[Guest Lester Weevils]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353256486' post='847659']
The value of a wage is dependent on the cost of living in a society. If you use a static pie like that, you haven't
factored in the cost of living in one part of the equation. China is having problems moving into the world market,
but it is, or was climbing, and the people in China are expecting a better wage for their labor, just like Americans.

I like smoked oysters and I hope they aren't canned in China.
[/quote]

Thanks 6.8

Dunno about people expecting a higher wage in usa nowadays. If you look thru the first pages of this thread, several people commented that the Hostess employees should have just rolled over on pay cuts to keep their jobs, because they just can't expect anything better nowadays in the usa. I offer no opinion whether or not the employees should have rolled over to keep some kind of job, just saying some of our members apparently have no expectations of higher wages in the future. At least for factory workers.

Been self-employed most my life many reasons but maybe the main reason-- It didn't seem tolerable to work for somebody else at least as employee. So I don't understand the mindset of folks who want to work for somebody else or want to put up with the BS or be "taken care of" by unions and management. Self employed is no bed of roses and maybe I would have made more money "working for the man" but was allergic to the concept and maybe it would have driven me crazy(er). Last time I got a W2 was 1976, and was filling out schedule C (IRS self employed income) every year 1971 to present.

Dunno how much cost of living affects the going rate for labor. Classical economics associates labor cost with demand for labor vs supply of labor. If there is demand for 1000 brilliant rocket scientists but there is a supply of 10,000 rocket scientists then odds are wages will be shockingly low but you wouldn't have much trouble hiring rocket scientists at the low wage and they would be glad for the work.

If a fella lives somewhere with a low cost of living, it gives him more breathing room to be selective about the job if he cares more about interesting work than high pay. Assuming he also lives somewhere they are hiring on interesting jobs at any wage.

Also cost of living seems to affect the quality of employees you can attract for X fixed wage. If you can only pay $20 an hour in NYC then if you can fill the position at all, it will likely be a doofus that you don't want to hire anyway, because you can't even live in a rat-infested one room tenement in NYC on $20 per hour. OTOH in some small TN place with low cost of living and not many job choices, $20 an hour might be enough to attract some of the smartest hardest working fellers in the county.

Especially noticeable on Federal jobs with nationwide standardized pay scales. A federal employee in position and pay scale Y in NYC is living in a rat-infested tenement, but a fed employee with the same position and pay in many TN counties is making more than most folk in the county, living on a virtual kings ransom salary for that region. So it isn't unexpected you might have higher-quality federal employees in low-cost-of-living areas, where the pay is good enough for competent people to apply for the jobs.

I was born in a tiny little AL town. The only ways to make a living there was farming, working in stores, working the cotton mill, and then a handful of independent tradesmen, and just a few each of doctors, lawyers, teachers, preachers, cops, real estate shysters and store owners. And a few jobs such as railroads. Old Dad said the folk who worked in the stores thought they were better than farmers and cotton mill workers because they didn't have to get dirty and sweat for a living. But the clerks made less money than (competent) farmers and cotton mill workers. The store clerks would probably have choked to take a job paying a little more at the mill, and lose their "clean hands" superior status. Not that any of the townfolk got paid very much, but on the other hand a loaf of white bread costed a nickel and everything else was priced accordingly.

I recall the teachers in that one horse town were real good but maybe remembering wrong. Teacher probably didn't pay worth a damn at that time and place. But if the other career choices were farming and cottonmill, then the job was probably very attractive regardless of the wage, and would attract "fairly smart individuals" in the little town. Wheras nowadays someone similarly "above average smart" can make a whole lot more than a teacher doing any number of trades, doing interesting work as well as high-pay. I'm not saying modern teachers are all dummies, only that lots more "better" opportunities exist for the higher-intelligence citizens, so unless a person was just bound-and-determined to be a teacher out of love for the work, they might be attracted to better-paying and more-interesting work nowadays.

Anyway, apologies just rambling again. Dunno where you buy yer smoked oysters. I buy em walmart and bilo. Haven't checked bilo recently, but most of the wally world smoked oysters were made in china last week when I was reading the backs of cans. In the past, they were near-universally made in morocco, so it is a fairly new thang. I didn't buy any smoked oysters last week. Haven't checked bilo, but have a sneaking suspicion maybe it will show the same thing. Never had the impression that morocco would be a high-salary location. Moroccan fish packers might be just as pissed as USA factory workers if china stole all their business, by implication meaning chinese will work even cheaper than moroccans.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Cost of living goes up and down all over the country, Lester, but I was using the term more generally than that.
A living wage would be different all over the country and possibly from town to town. If I were to go to work in the
northeast, my pay would be the same as it is here, just like the federal employee you mentioned. There would
be no adjustments. I'm glad I live here.

As far as rocket scientists go, I hope the employer would be more selective, rather than drop the pay, wouldn't you?
You said "brilliant" and then excluded the word in the next sentence. Also, in that small town, the ones there are like
any other town. The ones with more invested tend to make the most money. The doctor and lawyer will usually make
more than the clerk, school teacher or farm worker. The ones who own the farms will make more than their laborers.
The trends are all the same most anywhere. They also have the most at risk.