billvon 2,435 #26 April 20, 2011 >Economically the government is doing well because they have a nation of slave labor. You mean the "slave labor" that is constantly quitting their jobs to get better ones? Whose wages are doubling with great regularity? Yep, quite the slaves. (Note - "slave" does not mean "guy with a job that you don't want.") >You need to spend more time in main land china to truly understand the living >conditions of the average Chinese dude. We were in Dongguan back in 1995 and conditions were pretty bad by US standards. They were paying peanuts for workers from the provinces. And the workers liked the deal they got; they'd work for two years, live in dorms and retire like kings back in their home towns. Now companies like Primax are paying roughly 10x more for laborers who are a lot less happy. Their money doesn't go as far, and they have to live closer, constantly change jobs to get better ones and work longer hours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #27 April 20, 2011 Quote>At this point, China looks more like a highly regulated capitalist nation . . . Agreed. They are a communist (more socialist now) government that's got a good deal of capitalism thrown in. It's the use of several economic systems that is working for them. >China is succeeding because it has a billion cheap workers that undercut the >South Korean cheap labor who undercut the Japanese labor as each became >wealthier. And now China is becoming wealthier: ====================== NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY How Rising Wages Are Changing The Game In China A labor shortage has pay soaring. That is sure to send ripples around the globe. For years, Yongjin Group has earned a decent profit selling lamps and furniture to the likes of Wal-Mart (WMT ), Home Depot (HD ), Target (TGT ), and Pottery Barn. But lately the company has seen its margins shrink to 5% -- half what Yongjin made when it opened its factory in the steamy southern Chinese city of Dongguan 14 years ago. Why? Labor shortages are forcing the company to boost wages. Last year salaries surged 40%, to an average of $160 a month, and Yongjin still can't find enough workers. "This business needs a lot of labor," says President Sam Lin. "This is a very tough challenge." Some 1,500 miles northeast, in the city of Suzhou, Emerson Climate Technologies Co. is facing similar woes. The maker of air conditioner compressors has seen turnover for some jobs hit 20% annually, and Emerson General Manager David Warth says it's all he can do to keep his 800 employees from jumping ship to Samsung, Siemens (SI ), Nokia (NOK ), and other multinationals that are now operating in the tech manufacturing hub. "It has gotten to the point that we are just swapping folks and raising salaries," says Warth. Wait a minute. Doesn't China have an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor? Not any longer. From the textile and toy factories of the south to the corporate headquarters and research labs in Beijing and Shanghai, the No. 1 challenge today is finding and keeping good workers. Turnover in some low-tech industries approaches 50%, according to the Institute of Contemporary Observation, a Shenzhen labor research group. Guangdong Province says it has 2.5 million jobs that remain unfilled, while Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shandong provinces say they, too, face shortages of qualified workers. "Before, people talked about China's unlimited labor supply," says Zhang Juwei, deputy director of the Institute of Population & Labor Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. "We should revise that: China is facing a limited supply of labor." ========================== At these salaries I don't see how these companies can sustain themselves for long. It seems that the average monthly paycheck for these workers is now the equivalent of two pairs of low-end Nike shoes on the western retail market compared with the value of only one pair just a year ago. Well, at least the local Starbucks should do well with all that disposable income floating around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #28 April 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteAre you confusing banks with bankers? Nope! Bankers work for banks..banks hire bankers.. unless I'm completely off base.. The original statement concerned bankERS (people), your statement concerned lending institutions standing empty. Seems you ARE confused. How many Lehman Bros. execs filed personal bankruptcy? How many AIG and Goldman Sachs execs took home multi $million remuneration AFTER the taxpayers bailed them out? How many right wingers defended those bonuses on account of contracts, yet go on to whine about union contracts?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #29 April 20, 2011 >At these salaries I don't see how these companies can sustain themselves for long. Yep. They may eventually end up . . . like us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #30 April 20, 2011 So I here you saying how superior the Chinese way is compared to the U.S. What things from the Chinese homeland do you think would incorporate well into the U.S.?"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 April 20, 2011 QuoteHow many right wingers defended those bonuses on account of contracts, yet go on to whine about union contracts? How many left wingers whine about CEO pay, but defend union contracts?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #32 April 20, 2011 >So I here you saying how superior the Chinese way is compared to the U.S. Nope. Not superior, just different. >What things from the Chinese homeland do you think would incorporate well into the U.S.? Central economic planning, revoking minimum wage, downsizing OSHA and eliminating unions would make us a lot more competitive. Is all that worth it? Maybe, maybe not. Economic growth isn't everything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #33 April 21, 2011 Quote >At these salaries I don't see how these companies can sustain themselves for long. Yep. They may eventually end up . . . like us. Yes! We (the US and China) are heading for the same destination ....but from opposite directions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #34 April 21, 2011 QuoteThe original statement concerned bankERS (people), your statement concerned lending institutions standing empty. Seems you ARE confused. How many Lehman Bros. execs filed personal bankruptcy? How many AIG and Goldman Sachs execs took home multi $million remuneration AFTER the taxpayers bailed them out? How many right wingers defended those bonuses on account of contracts, yet go on to whine about union contracts? Ok so banERs are not BANKS. Fair enough. Brick and mortar are not people errrr. Why is it always Goldman and Lehman Bros. What about the smaller subprimes who went under like Fremont, Aegis, First Franklin etc. ? Anyway, the bonuses are the banks business. They didn't get my money (until I bailed them out and I do disagree with that). The union contracts are different because the Federal law says I HAVE to pay them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thomas.n.thomas 0 #35 April 21, 2011 I know it's kind of insensitive, but I laughed pretty hard at how your post got derailed immediately into a political debate. It's funny how most suck the media teat and only see red vs. blue. Here's a much more enjoyable red vs. blue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BAM9fgV-ts Now that the children are distracted... Ok, I'm joking. But seriously, isn't this an interesting philosophical question without trying to throw feces everywhere? Didn't someone say, "Democracy is a great system, until the people realize that they can vote themselves money from the treasury. Then the jig is up." I very much like Heinlein's description: Bread and Circuses So really, how do you try to balance production and consumption? That's the ultimate question. An imbalance to either side is ultimately not beneficial, so what do we do to reach equilibrium before it comes and finds us in the middle of the night and beats the heck out of us with a bar of soap in a sock? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 April 21, 2011 Quote I very much like Heinlein's description: Bread and Circuses that phrase predates Heinlein by over 1800 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thomas.n.thomas 0 #37 April 21, 2011 Noted - maybe I should rephrase as: the way Heinlein described our current situation. I was unaware of the numerous other references to the original (Roman?) phrase. Thanks for the info. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
