Caterpillar Trying to Cut Wags & Benefits by 50% when Profitable

[bush_cheney2004]

...However, it would be stupid to build a better quality printer, because of the rapid rate of technological improvement. In 2-3 years your printer is passe and most of the market will buy a newer, snazzier one.

Agreed....I have a basic HP LaserJet printer that cost about $700 US in 1993...it was both Mac and PC compatible, and printed at a whopping 4 ppm @ 300 dpi. It was built like a tank and uses a bullet proof Canon print engine. It has printed over 30,000 pages according to the internal firmware counter (my wife is old school - prints everything). The only reason I keep it full of toner and use it as a spare is because of the initial price paid. There is a newer HP OfficeJet wifi color printer sitting right next to it, and that printer cost $90 in 2010....and it is also a fax, scanner, and copier with sheet feeder.

[Wild Bill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=endUcoHsCVY

Sorry, I'm not wasting 13 minutes of my time on a blind reference to some link. Tell me something that's in there that's good enough to interest me or just forget it!

Next you'll be asking me to go to the library and read a half a dozen books - ALL TO PROVE YOUR POINT!

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Sorry, I'm not wasting 13 minutes of my time on a blind reference to some link. Tell me something that's in there that's good enough to interest me or just forget it!

Next you'll be asking me to go to the library and read a half a dozen books - ALL TO PROVE YOUR POINT!

It's actually a 55 minute documentary in 4 parts. Documenting how corporations have purposefully made consumer products worse, or put timer chips like the printer to make them fail after a certain number of prints. I pity anyone who buys Apple junk. They are the worst, my wife's iBook can't access the internet anymore because it needs to download a new browser, to download the new browser she needs a new version of OSX, she needs a new computer for the new version of OSX. but... my 11 year old windows machine still can!

This is especially concerning in the electronic age where only the chip designer would know that there is a counter that says when X date is reached, start malfunctioning.

That is our version of capitalism. It's also how most people still have jobs in our mass manufacturing era. It can't continue, we'll need to shift to a new economy because of our finite resources on earth.

Your loss.

Thread drift anyways.

Edited January 7, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[TimG]

I pity anyone who buys Apple junk.

You missed WB's point. The people to blame are the consumers that buy this stuff - not the companies who make it. If consumers demanded better then companies would provide. Edited January 7, 2012 by TimG

[MiddleClassCentrist]

You missed WB's point. The people to blame are the consumers that buy this stuff - not the companies who make it.

I do agree, the blame falls on consumers to some degree. But it isn't like we can just stop buying light bulbs or other essentials. They are inelastic, if one breaks we need to replace it. When the standard bulb is only 1000hours after 100 years with no improvement, something is shady. If there is corporate collusion to keep the products weaker, they are also part of the blame.

If consumers demanded better then companies would provide.

In theory, yes. In reality, not so much.

Most people wouldn't even know where to look in Electronics to figure out if it was doing something because it was programmed to. If it is set to go a little haywire 4 years after purchase, most people would likely just buy another one and think nothing of it. How can someone make a good judgement when the don't know what is happening?

A company would just just market themselves as better and be done with it, or a company would start selling a better product and then be bought out by a bigger company that would return to it's old ways to keep the money flowing. There are a lot of ways to make a company look like it is doing what customers want.

Just look at the Telecom industry. People are using less text messages. What are the Telco's solution? Offer a better plan for low text usage? NO! Eliminiate the low end text plan to force people to pay for more texting they don't use.

Change isn't something that businesses like. Change means additional costs. Preventing change saves money lost on innovation.

Edited January 8, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[TimG]

If there is corporate collusion to keep the products weaker, they are also part of the blame.

Simply the free market in action. Light bulbs are replaced so rarely that average person simply does not care and would rather buy something cheaper even if does not last as long. People can be short sighted when it comes to these things. It is not the company's fault.

If it is set to go a little haywire 4 years after purchase, most people would likely just buy another one and think nothing of it.

Again - the consumer is the one choosing to accept such things. If the consumers cared they would pay more for a brand that last longer.

The point you are missing is collectively the consumer simply does not want products that last longer or are not willing to pay more them. For that reason you cannot expect the market to provide what consumers collectively do not want.

Edited January 8, 2012 by TimG

[August1991]

I'll step in here to offer an answer: competitive advantage. If Canada were to shut out all food imports, we would spend more resources growing our food than we would have to spend if we imported it.

This is why globalized trade makes sense on an economic level.

IOW, we can either use our own resources (manpower, etc) to make locomotives in Canada or we can let foreigners make the locomotives and send them to us. If we let foreigners make locomotives, and it requires fewer of our resources to do this, then we would be foolish to make locomotives in Canada.

This argument strikes me as so obvious that I wonder why there is so much confusion about it. I suspect one reason is that most of us only have to sell something when we look for a job (and sell our labour services). IOW, many people view a job as a godsend, and not as a cost. Maybe with all the double-dipping State-employed retirees in Canada, this will change.

BTW Michael, the term is "comparative advantage".

Of course, there are losers.

Wait a second, MH your answer is too glib. If you find a better/faster route/way to get home through afternoon rush-hour traffic, then you and your family are obvious winners. So who are the losers?

This question is no different from the question of Caterpillar and locomotives.

Edited January 8, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

Whats truly sad is your appeal to silly absolutes in suggesting that "all trade is good", or trying to equate offshoring production with pioneering new technology.

These silly absolutes are the biggest problem, and neither free trade or protectionist absolutists really understand any of these issues.

Voluntary trade is always good, or at least both sides expect to get something good. And the comparison of opening to trade and introducing new technology is logically sound.

As for your desperation to turn every freaking issue into a tirade against the left, that has no meaning. Its just a meaningless strawman, and this "left" you mention as being a bunch of people with uniformly anti trade views exists only in your head.

Left? It seems to me that the (English Canadian) Left (ie. the NDP, Maude Barlow, Margaret Atwood et al) are frequently against Free Trade. Quebec's Left has only recently gone this way.

IIRC, Bob Rae left the NDP and joined the Liberals because of free trade and Israel.

"Trade" is fine. Trade imbalances however are NOT fine and will eventually be corrected.

So, trade imbalances are not fine until they're corrected. (WTF? )

Take the Chinese factory that makes Iphones... Workers make about 12 dollars PER MONTH, they are forced to work 70 hour weeks, and they are forbidden from talking to each other during their shifts. It sucks so bad to work there that 30 people attempted suicide by jumping from the factories roof last year alone, 18 were successful.

And how many Chinese jumped from windows in the midst of the Cultural Revolution? dre, hundreds of millions of Chinese (and Indians) have been lifted out of dire poverty in the past 30 years, and you think that's bad? Or how about Africa.

But look, at the risk of being quoted out of context, I would prefer if wages in China were to go 1 DOLLAR PER MONTH, or even zero. The Sun after all sends us light and heat at zero cost. Why complain about how cheapt the Chinese are and not complain about that invidious competitor the Sun?

How low would our wages have to get to "compete"?

The famous "race to the bottom" argument.

What about the "race to the top" in auctions, some real estate sales or those infamous million dollar sports contracts.

It seems that the race can go in either direction. Personally, I like the infamous "price war". No one gets killed and they're fun to watch.

Edited January 8, 2012 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Wait a second, MH your answer is too glib. If you find a better/faster route/way to get home through afternoon rush-hour traffic, then you and your family are obvious winners. So who are the losers?

This question is no different from the question of Caterpillar and locomotives.

The losers are the ones who can't compete - who else?

[bush_cheney2004]

The losers are the ones who can't compete - who else?

The one who won't compete.

[August1991]

The losers are the ones who can't compete - who else?

No, the losers are the people who happen to drive on the new better/faster route/way that you now use to go home. The winners are you and your family (and the people on your old route/way who have one less person blocking them).

MH, you are viewing public policy from the perspective of the losers, people who now have another driver/person on their route.

-----

Imagine that. Your wife finds a better way to drive home, and the Left jumps in to complain about losers and victims. And BC jumps in to argue that the "losers" can't compete.

----

Here's my viewpoint: If your wife finds a better way to drive home, if we find a better way to get locomotives, it would be foolish to do otherwise.

Edited January 8, 2012 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

No, the losers are the people who happen to drive on the new better/faster route/way that you now use to go home.

Your analogy fails in this way, Auguste. There ARE losers. There are people who are worse off from freer trade. The world isn't a rose garden. Accept that.

The winners are you and your family (and the people on your old route/way who have one less person blocking them).

This is known as 'net economic benefit'.

MH, you are viewing public policy from the perspective of the losers, people who now have another driver/person on their route.

I'm actually speaking objectively about this. I know you want me to jump in and moralize, but I'm not going to do that. The economic case for globalization is sound.

But there are losers. Those whose market price has been undercut by the competition are likely not going to find their way back to their old lifestyles easily.

-----

Imagine that. Your wife finds a better way to drive home, and the Left jumps in to complain about losers and victims. And BC jumps in to argue that the "losers" can't compete.

Stop attributing everything I say as having a "leftist" viewpoint. It's insulting and annoying. We are not of two colours on this board. I think globalization is advantageous and inevitable. Now that I have said that, are you going attribute that position to a "leftist one" ?

Here's my viewpoint: If your wife finds a better way to drive home, if we find a better way to get locomotives, it would be foolish to do otherwise.

Of course it would. But to claim that everyone is across-the-board better off is not realistic. And economic "losers" don't mean wage earners only. Producers, manufacturers and others have had to adapt and have lost something as well. If you own a tariff protected company outright, and globalization hits you, then your asset has lost value.

I'm sorry to be the one to explain all of this to you, but just because I'm left-of-centre please don't attribute everything I say to "the left". I certainly don't think that you speak for "the right".

Anyway, those terms are outdated and unhelpful.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Imagine that. Your wife finds a better way to drive home, and the Left jumps in to complain about losers and victims. And BC jumps in to argue that the "losers" can't compete.

No, you misunderstood...there is a difference between can't and won't...except in the army.

[August1991]

Stop attributing everything I say as having a "leftist" viewpoint. It's insulting and annoying.

Fer gawdsakes, your wife finds a better way to drive home and you don't understand how that's "good" and instead object to my claim that you're a Leftist.

No, you misunderstood...there is a difference between can't and won't...except in the army.

Wtf?

-----

Left/Right? I fear that some people will always take sides on any issue, including sunlight. Some would object to sunlight because it is too free (race to the bottom), and others defend sunlight because it shows that candlemakers are wimps.

IMV, sunlight is simply a good thing. And so too if we discover a better way to get locomotives. Point final.

Edited January 8, 2012 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Fer gawdsakes, your wife finds a better way to drive home and you don't understand how that's "good" and instead object to my claim that you're a Leftist.

Good?

Too simple. Read my post again.

[dre]

Simply the free market in action. Light bulbs are replaced so rarely that average person simply does not care and would rather buy something cheaper even if does not last as long. People can be short sighted when it comes to these things. It is not the company's fault.

Again - the consumer is the one choosing to accept such things. If the consumers cared they would pay more for a brand that last longer.

The point you are missing is collectively the consumer simply does not want products that last longer or are not willing to pay more them. For that reason you cannot expect the market to provide what consumers collectively do not want.

Well... in the consumers defense these things are not always clear. They know very little about the products they buy. The market needs more disclosure and information about the quality of products and how they are made.

My guess is that if consumers had all this information they would make different choices. For example... the average lifetime of a product should be on the box, as should the percentage of the products that are returned because they are defective. It would take less than a square inch or two on a products packaging to disclose this information. I bought a new laptop a few months ago, and laptops more often then not need repairs within the first couple of years. So I asked the salesmen, which ones get returned to the store with defects the most. He couldnt tell me shit, and said the information wasnt available. Even though both he and I knew that information was on a hard disk less then 50 feet away. If I had that information, and I realized that spending a few hundred dollars more would have made it way less likely to have problems, or lose the use of my machine while a defect is repaired I probably would have spent that extra money. I could have spend some time researching it online I guess, but thats not good enough.

Other things should be disclosed on product packaging as well. For example, if it was displayed on the box that an IPAD comes in, the fact that it was made in a factory where workers work 70 hour weeks to make 12 dollars per month, and they are not even allowed to speak to each during shifts, and 30 of them have attempted suicide in the last year alone by jumping off the factories roof, then SOME consumers would make different choices. Not ALL of them... but some.

A good example is how food producers are required by law to put nutritional information on packaging. This information DOES influence consumer choice in a pretty big way. The information is there so I use it all the time.

[fellowtraveller]

The information is there so I use it all the time.

You'd better stock up now then on locomotives with a 'Made in Canada' sticker then, they won't be around much longer.

Neither will Ontario auto and auto parts industry, most of those jobs will be going bye bye soon too.

[fellowtraveller]

As I understand it, the OP is cranky that Caterpillar is cutting labour costs at a time when they are profitable. Would he prefer that the company become unprofitable first?

Would that satisfy some dark and primal need?

[CPCFTW]

Welcome to Harperland where the government agrees to let non-Canadian companies buy out successful ones at the cost that they pay nice for a year then shut down the company until workers agree to take huge cuts. That is the country we live in for right now I guess.

From my recollection, foreign takeovers of the TMX Group by the LSE, and Potash Corp. by BHP were both blocked by the Harper government. So much for that theory I guess.

[CPCFTW]

Silliness. The government accounts for almost 1/2 of the capital investment in singapore firms. To suggest this investment has no bearing on employment is not even an assertion worthy of comment.

Again, too silly to comment on. The unemployment rate there is low because a mountain of new jobs were created. Mainly because theres more skilled workers, the government has lots of programs to support entrepreurs, and they invest in business through SWF's.

But of course. Their unemployment rate is low simply because they kicked out some malaysians :lol: Nothing at all to do with the 3000 multi nationals that have set up shop there due to a skilled workforce, modern infrastructure, and heavily public investment in tech industry.

Isn't that the corporate welfare that you guys just had your camp out about? I guess corporate welfare is ok if it is for green energy and drug companies but not for oilsands development?

[CPCFTW]

No its not BS, unlike your about kicking out malaysians accounting for the 2% u rate.. Those are exactly the reasons businesses give for going there. And the only reason they can maintain low tax rates, is because the government owns almost 60% of the shares in all firms, and collects much of their revenue through dividends.

And how did the government pay for those shares in those firms? Through a pro-business approach to governance for decades during which those corporations "exploited" cheap Singapore labour. The government spent money on creating jobs and investing rather than spending money on subsidizing laziness and failure like the West.

[August1991]

Good?

Too simple. Read my post again.

OK. I will:

Your analogy fails in this way, Auguste. There ARE losers. There are people who are worse off from freer trade. The world isn't a rose garden. Accept that.

...

This is known as 'net economic benefit'.

...

I'm actually speaking objectively about this. I know you want me to jump in and moralize, but I'm not going to do that. The economic case for globalization is sound.

...

But there are losers. Those whose market price has been undercut by the competition are likely not going to find their way back to their old lifestyles easily.

How does this change anything?

---

If your wife finds a better route to drive home after work, she (and your family) are better off. Anyone on the route your wife previously took is also better off (since your wife is one less person in the way). OTOH, the people on your wife's new route are arguably worse off - they have a new person in their path.

Michael, you (and Leftists) put all the emphasis on the people who once had a route without your wife - the losers in my scenario.

Using common sense, I say that if you or your wife find a better way to get home, indeed if you're happy together, the world is a better place.

Indeed by your logic Michael, while I point at a happy marriage and say that's good, you would point at an ex-lover, old boyfriend and claim that this "happy marriage" has created losers.

[Michael Hardner]

OK. I will:

How does this change anything?

Your use of 'good' and 'bad' are simplistic. If an economic change happens that increases your wealth by 100% and reduces mine by 50% it's a net "good" for the economy but to call it "good" overall is applying a single metric to something that has multiple outcomes.

Michael, you (and Leftists) put all the emphasis on the people who once had a route without your wife - the losers in my scenario.

It's your emphasis, not mine. I am in favour of liberalized trade, although you paint me as being against it.

Indeed by your logic Michael, while I point at a happy marriage and say that's good, you would point at an ex-lover, old boyfriend and claim that this "happy marriage" has created losers.

The government cares very much about the losers, since they vote, and tries to use the winfall from the general benefit to help them. As I pointed out, this doesn't just mean workers - it means whole industries.

[dre]

Isn't that the corporate welfare that you guys just had your camp out about? I guess corporate welfare is ok if it is for green energy and drug companies but not for oilsands development?

MY campout? That was your campout dude. Mr "government should own the means of production"...

[August1991]

Your use of 'good' and 'bad' are simplistic. If an economic change happens that increases your wealth by 100% and reduces mine by 50% it's a net "good" for the economy but to call it "good" overall is applying a single metric to something that has multiple outcomes.

Subways and cell phones are good things. They make life easier. Ask anyone who lives near a metro station. Or ask anyone if they would live without their cellphone. Possibly, subways and cellphones are bad for some people. Huh?

Michael, the ability to start fire was possibly bad for some people too: Quest for Fire

Edited January 16, 2012 by August1991