Bad News for Labour

[cybercoma]

First let me start out by acknowledging my opinion that labour and capital need to have a cooperative and symbiotic relationship for the health of society and the well-being of everyone. In my opinion, any public policy that favours one side more strongly over the other is unhealthy and will lead to social decay.

Over the last 30 years, policies have shifted to focus on generating wealth for the capital class at the expense of the labouring classes. The numbers show a concentration of wealth into the top 1% in the OECD. The major issue with this is that the capital class no longer needs the labouring classes to generate or maintain their wealth. However, these short-term gains will be undermined in the long-term by gutting the labour classes of their wealth, thus undermining the capital class's pool of revenue.

Yet, in a free market economy it's important that as many players as possible have complete information to make free unhindered decisions. Proponents of conservatism seem to have conflated laissez-faire with classical liberalism as of late. The former believed players needed to be free to form monopolies without any regulation whatsoever, while classicists like Adam Smith fiercely rejected monopolies, indicating some need for market regulation. Rightwing pundits and politicians today seem to indicate a desire to return to laissez-faire economics and the Hobbesian war of all, but sell it as classical liberalism.

The problem? labour is losing, according to the latest OECD Employment Outlook numbers. Some may not see this as a problem, but rather some social Darwinian necessity. However, labour is part of that symbiotic organism that is our society. If labour loses, capital will lose. Henry Ford understood this when he turned his employees into customers by providing them with higher wages so they could buy his vehicles. Milton Hershey, hardly a man one would call socialist, understood this. When told at a construction site that a steam shovel was doing the work of thirty men, he told them to get rid of the steam shovel and hire thirty men. He understood not just the moral obligation the capital class has to build society, but he understood the symbiotic relationship between the labour class and capital class.

Take a look through the article above. There are some staggering figures that do not bode well for Canadians or other OECD nations affected. We are moving into a neo-truck-system era. Rather than being paid with a currency substitute, labour is barely being paid at all, forced to live on credit as a currency substitute. Meanwhile, youth unemployment is a staggering 15.2%, over twice that of the national average. While we're currently in the transition period, when the bottom falls out this is going to be just as devastating for the capital class as it is for the labour class.

Some statistics from the article linked above:

• Median¹ share in income for labour in the OECD in the 1990s was 66.1% and fell to 61.7% by the late 2000s.
  
• In Canada labour's share fell from 65.3% to 60.3% between 1990-2009.
  
• In Canada labour's share of national income fell 3.1% between 1990-2000, but if you exclude the top 1% of income earners from that calculation it fell 6% for the other 99%.
  
• Labour's share of income from the business sector (iow, wages paid by businesses) fell 7% between 1990-2007.
  

¹ Median is the point where the cases are split with 50% above and 50% below. Income is typically a skewed value, making mean average an inappropriate measurement here.

As the power for labour to bargain continues to be undermined by governments like the Harper Conservatives, this situation will only get worse. Unfortunately, the capital class can't seem to see that this is going to come back to haunt them just as much as it affects the labour classes now. You can't slowly take food off people's tables and not expect it to eventually come to a head.

[cybercoma]

Just as I submitted this post there was a CBC News Alert indicating that the CAW and CEP are proposing a merger to revitalize the labour movement. No link to an article yet.

Edit: Link is up now. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/08/01/wdr-caw-cep-merger-details-conference.html?cmp=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Edited August 1, 2012 by cybercoma

[Topaz]

I don't think that people with money haven't stopped and thought this one out. IF all unions are gone and the basic wage is 10.25, who is going to be paying the taxes to support the feds spending? If the unions go, so does the middle class and with only low and higher income earners, the shift to the taxing the rich more will come. Right now, someone told me that one of the Big 3 is thinking of laying off workers for a couple months because no one is buying the 2012 models. The middle class is what running this country and once that goes, the economy will feel the effect. So its more than about unions, its about the economy of the country.

[Shady]

Income is based on the type of job you do, and in the particular industry you're in, and the revenue you generate.

[Canuckistani]

I don't think that people with money haven't stopped and thought this one out. IF all unions are gone and the basic wage is 10.25, who is going to be paying the taxes to support the feds spending? If the unions go, so does the middle class and with only low and higher income earners, the shift to the taxing the rich more will come. Right now, someone told me that one of the Big 3 is thinking of laying off workers for a couple months because no one is buying the 2012 models. The middle class is what running this country and once that goes, the economy will feel the effect. So its more than about unions, its about the economy of the country.

People with money don't need the feds spending. Buy private insurance for health care, hire nannies for daycare, don't need no stinkin welfare. This isn't just a war on labor, but on the middle class. It will be very nice to be part of the global 1%, because you'll once again be able to get your servants for a pittance.

[bleeding heart]

Income is based on the type of job you do, and in the particular industry you're in, and the revenue you generate.

Sure it is.

[Moonbox]

As the power for labour to bargain continues to be undermined by governments like the Harper Conservatives, this situation will only get worse. Unfortunately, the capital class can't seem to see that this is going to come back to haunt them just as much as it affects the labour classes now. You can't slowly take food off people's tables and not expect it to eventually come to a head.

The power of collective bargaining was neutered with NAFTA and the opening of trade with Asia. Unless we want to put trade restrictions on goods from abroad, which is the only thing that will make Canadian menial labour competitive, all collective bargaining is going to do is put companies out of business and, in the case of public sector unions, create negative publicity.

Personally, I'm not all that upset about it. I'm quite happy that I'm able to buy a decent car that will reliably last me 10-15 years, because that was impossible before Toyota and Honda got a foothold in the market. All those awesome wages and benefits the employees of the Big Three got were great for them, I'm sure, but the protectionism that allowed this also left the average consumer with the choice of buying a shitty, unreliable car from one of three inefficient manufacturers with overpaid employees.

When people are talking about how aweful it is that the middle class is shrinking, they forget that foreign competition has made goods cheaper, more competitive and all around better for everyone .

I'll admit that I think the government could do a little bit more to ensure more fair trading arrangements with our Asian partners, and perhaps higher minium wages etc, but unions are certainly not the answer to these problems. There's a reason they're only doing well in public sector monopolies and protected industries. They take advantage of it.

[blueblood]

First let me start out by acknowledging my opinion that labour and capital need to have a cooperative and symbiotic relationship for the health of society and the well-being of everyone. In my opinion, any public policy that favours one side more strongly over the other is unhealthy and will lead to social decay.

Over the last 30 years, policies have shifted to focus on generating wealth for the capital class at the expense of the labouring classes. The numbers show a concentration of wealth into the top 1% in the OECD. The major issue with this is that the capital class no longer needs the labouring classes to generate or maintain their wealth. However, these short-term gains will be undermined in the long-term by gutting the labour classes of their wealth, thus undermining the capital class's pool of revenue.

Yet, in a free market economy it's important that as many players as possible have complete information to make free unhindered decisions. Proponents of conservatism seem to have conflated laissez-faire with classical liberalism as of late. The former believed players needed to be free to form monopolies without any regulation whatsoever, while classicists like Adam Smith fiercely rejected monopolies, indicating some need for market regulation. Rightwing pundits and politicians today seem to indicate a desire to return to laissez-faire economics and the Hobbesian war of all, but sell it as classical liberalism.

The problem? labour is losing, according to the latest OECD Employment Outlook numbers. Some may not see this as a problem, but rather some social Darwinian necessity. However, labour is part of that symbiotic organism that is our society. If labour loses, capital will lose. Henry Ford understood this when he turned his employees into customers by providing them with higher wages so they could buy his vehicles. Milton Hershey, hardly a man one would call socialist, understood this. When told at a construction site that a steam shovel was doing the work of thirty men, he told them to get rid of the steam shovel and hire thirty men. He understood not just the moral obligation the capital class has to build society, but he understood the symbiotic relationship between the labour class and capital class.

Take a look through the article above. There are some staggering figures that do not bode well for Canadians or other OECD nations affected. We are moving into a neo-truck-system era. Rather than being paid with a currency substitute, labour is barely being paid at all, forced to live on credit as a currency substitute. Meanwhile, youth unemployment is a staggering 15.2%, over twice that of the national average. While we're currently in the transition period, when the bottom falls out this is going to be just as devastating for the capital class as it is for the labour class.

Some statistics from the article linked above:

• Median¹ share in income for labour in the OECD in the 1990s was 66.1% and fell to 61.7% by the late 2000s.
  
• In Canada labour's share fell from 65.3% to 60.3% between 1990-2009.
  
• In Canada labour's share of national income fell 3.1% between 1990-2000, but if you exclude the top 1% of income earners from that calculation it fell 6% for the other 99%.
  
• Labour's share of income from the business sector (iow, wages paid by businesses) fell 7% between 1990-2007.
  

¹ Median is the point where the cases are split with 50% above and 50% below. Income is typically a skewed value, making mean average an inappropriate measurement here.

As the power for labour to bargain continues to be undermined by governments like the Harper Conservatives, this situation will only get worse. Unfortunately, the capital class can't seem to see that this is going to come back to haunt them just as much as it affects the labour classes now. You can't slowly take food off people's tables and not expect it to eventually come to a head.

What are you talking about, how are rich people taking away from the middle class? The "capital class" is making money not because they are screwing the middle class, but because their customer base is rapidly expanding in emerging markets. Labour screwed themselves because of their small mindedness. The middle class screwed themselves with their greed and entitlement just as much as bankers with a central bank with a gun to their heads.

We already paid for massive govt spending in the 70s and all we have to show for it is a debt that still isn't paid. Rich people contribute enough to society, why can't the rest of the country step up?

[Wild Bill]

Personally, I'm not all that upset about it. I'm quite happy that I'm able to buy a decent car that will reliably last me 10-15 years, because that was impossible before Toyota and Honda got a foothold in the market. All those awesome wages and benefits the employees of the Big Three got were great for them, I'm sure, but the protectionism that allowed this also left the average consumer with the choice of buying a shitty, unreliable car from one of three inefficient manufacturers with overpaid employees.

Good point, MB! The younger guys on this board have no idea of the way things used to be. In the early 70's the typical North American car was beat after only 3 years! Sometimes it was even worse. The "Rusty Ford Owners" lobby group was formed then over new cars rusting out after less than 18 months. I remember a neighbour having wheel wells completely rusted out in their Chevy station wagon after only 1 winter!

I had a brand new 1977 Chryler van that put me in the poorhouse! Secret warrantees, catalytic converters that broke inside and then plugged up, an automatic choke that didn't work and kept the van from starting from October through May (I finally ripped it out and installed a manual control), a differential that burned out at 80k kms - the list went on and I was very frustrated. I was just a young feller starting out and these problems were a real financial hardship.

Finally I sold the damn thing and bought a VW convertible. My gas costs dropped from $300 a month to less than $50! Considering my loan payment was $350 per month this was great! My girlfriend and I took it up north to a camp ground. The first morning it was parked by our tent, gleaming in the sun. A fellow came by and commented on how good it looked. As the conversation went on he began to hint around about how I should feel guilty about taking away Canadian autoworkers' jobs. Turned out he worked at a Chrysler transmission plant in Windsor. I couldn't help it, I lost it! I dumped all the problems I had with my van on top of him! I explained how the Chrysler warranty process was just a run around and waste of time. His defense was that it was all management's fault and if I had brought my van around to the back door of his plant all the problems would have been fixed for free!

This was just nuts! Even if true, I had no way of knowing this and Windsor was at least a 5 hour drive away from Hamilton. I said that if they didn't make crap in the first place I wouldn't have bought a VW!

Then I told him that as an autoworker he likely made at least twice the wage that I was making. I didn't see what made him so special that I was supposed to support HIS job! What had the autoworkers ever done for ME?

At that point he left.

The point is that imports did not take market share back then solely on price. Often it was on quality. So much of domestic product was simply crap! When customers were offered better choices, can you blame them for jumping at them?

[Keepitsimple]

Good point, MB! The younger guys on this board have no idea of the way things used to be.

No kidding Bill. Companies spend millions to create "brand" names so they can trade on the success of that Brand. Corvette, Mustang, Gran Prix, and Taurus are some of the brands that have survived. A brand can't survive if their reputation is damaged. True, some names just become dated.....but back in the 70's and 80's, brands were discontinued - never to be heard of again - because of reliability and quite frankly - they were just crappy cars. To name just a few brands that have come and gone:

From GM: Beretta, Corsica, Omega, Ventura, Phoenix, Citation

From Chrsler: Aries, Reliant, Omni, Horizon, Dynasty, Conquest, Concorde, Cirrus, Cordoba, Avenger

From Ford: Maverick, Fiesta, Contour, Asprire, Probe, Pinto, Zephyr, Marauder, Grenada

I'm sure people can think of many more.

[cybercoma]

You guys are completely missing the point that people can't go, get a job, and make a living anymore. Businesses are spending less and less on wages. This means that wealth is being concentrated into the hands of those that can afford to live off investments. That's very few people in society. This will lead to serious problems, not just for those who cannot make an honest living anymore, but also for those who are hoarding the fruits of those people's labour.

[punked]

You guys are completely missing the point that people can't go, get a job, and make a living anymore. Businesses are spending less and less on wages. This means that wealth is being concentrated into the hands of those that can afford to live off investments. That's very few people in society. This will lead to serious problems, not just for those who cannot make an honest living anymore, but also for those who are hoarding the fruits of those people's labour.

You grow a nation from the middle. Heck even China is doing this, not from the top. The more middle you get the more rich and powerful your nation becomes.

[blueblood]

You guys are completely missing the point that people can't go, get a job, and make a living anymore. Businesses are spending less and less on wages. This means that wealth is being concentrated into the hands of those that can afford to live off investments. That's very few people in society. This will lead to serious problems, not just for those who cannot make an honest living anymore, but also for those who are hoarding the fruits of those people's labour.

And your missing the point that its a different world than the fifties. Businesses are spending less on wages because people are wanting to spend less on products and services to the point that they must be made in areas that will pay lower wages to get goods made.

Nobody's hoarding anything in a hole in the ground. Maybe if the threat of jacking up taxes and throwing in random regulations wasn't hanging over business's heads, they might be able to forecast earnings and down the road hire people.

Would you rather have china et al stay poor so they can cause problems for us down the road. More customers means more money. Maybe instead of getting a sociology degree, young people can get educated in things that are actually worth something so they can manage those firms operating overseas.

China is growing from the middle because they produce things people want at a price people are willing to pay. Not only that they save their money better than we do. Not only that, goods are priced at what they can afford. Why is cell phone service more affordable there than it is here?

[Topaz]

And your missing the point that its a different world than the fifties. Businesses are spending less on wages because people are wanting to spend less on products and services to the point that they must be made in areas that will pay lower wages to get goods made.

Nobody's hoarding anything in a hole in the ground. Maybe if the threat of jacking up taxes and throwing in random regulations wasn't hanging over business's heads, they might be able to forecast earnings and down the road hire people.

Would you rather have china et al stay poor so they can cause problems for us down the road. More customers means more money. Maybe instead of getting a sociology degree, young people can get educated in things that are actually worth something so they can manage those firms operating overseas.

China is growing from the middle because they produce things people want at a price people are willing to pay. Not only that they save their money better than we do. Not only that, goods are priced at what they can afford. Why is cell phone service more affordable there than it is here?

It was reported recently at businesses are making profits because their labour cost are down, so it seems to me that business has one up on consumers and businesses have low taxes compard to consumers. I say consumers aren't spending because the government keeps telling consumers to cut their spending. Businesses will alsways have the government on their side compared to consumers.

I do agree with you on cell phone service but that's all up to the Tories under Minister Moore.

[Wild Bill]

You guys are completely missing the point that people can't go, get a job, and make a living anymore. Businesses are spending less and less on wages. This means that wealth is being concentrated into the hands of those that can afford to live off investments. That's very few people in society. This will lead to serious problems, not just for those who cannot make an honest living anymore, but also for those who are hoarding the fruits of those people's labour.

CC, I have posted in agreement with you on these points many times. I have lived exactly what you describe. That's not my point.

Why should I be forced to buy crap to keep some autoworker in a job that pays far more than mine? Don't blow this off as mere envy! The fact remains that the union workers often DID make poor quality products.

"Bash to fit! Paint to hide!" is one old saying. Another is "Must have been built on a Friday!"

I am not arguing against jobs staying in Canada. I am arguing against certain workers exploiting their protected positions for their OWN benefit!

Both management and workers have too often been totally self-centred and inept at adapting to new market conditions. When someone brings a better and cheaper product into your marketplace you should find a way to compete, not lobby the government to keep them out so you can continue to make expensive crap!

I get particularly incensed when I have to deal with a service run by government. If the CUPE worker is an arrogant dolt there is nothing I can do about it. Any complaints will be handled with smoke and mirrors, just to get me to go away. Besides, that CUPE worker is also just following a system designed by moronic Luddites anyway.

The reason this sort of thing upsets me more than in the private sector is that I have no other choices! If Chevrolet is on strike I can always go visit Ford. If it is a service ONLY provided by the government I'm screwed! There is nowhere else I can go.

The Luddites have a monopoly!

I would like to see positive solutions in making things here that are as good and as cheap as anywhere else. I am not interested in solutions that only allow some privileged workers to carry on making the same expensive and poor quality stuff they always have done.

[cybercoma]

And your missing the point that its a different world than the fifties. Businesses are spending less on wages because people are wanting to spend less on products and services to the point that they must be made in areas that will pay lower wages to get goods made.

Chicken-egg problem. Are businesses spending less on wages because people want to spend less or do people want to spend less because businesses are spending less on wages?

[blueblood]

Chicken-egg problem. Are businesses spending less on wages because people want to spend less or do people want to spend less because businesses are spending less on wages?

Its not a chicken and egg problem, its an equilibrium problem. The issue is that the point of equilibrium is where its lower than it used to be because of emerging markets. China started off from being a country that went through famines because its economy was terrible to having the second largest gdp in the world, because they realized that some pay is better than no pay, eventually more and more beca$e employed and the wages rose as a result of a competition for workers.

Another problem we have is endebtedness and entitlement. North american consumers feel entitled to goods and services no matter their income level and spend money they don't have, thus putting on the chains of debt and high prices.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Another problem we have is endebtedness and entitlement. North american consumers feel entitled to goods and services no matter their income level and spend money they don't have, thus putting on the chains of debt and high prices.

I see a lot of this.

Why do so many people own iPhones and iPads ffs. At least get cheaper ones...

But, you can only spend money that you have access to.

If you don't have access to cash through wages... you can't buy as much.

[blueblood]

I see a lot of this.

Why do so many people own iPhones and iPads ffs. At least get cheaper ones...

But, you can only spend money that you have access to.

If you don't have access to cash through wages... you can't buy as much.

Unfortunately a lot of people don't see it that way and go on shopping sprees with double digit interest credit cards. That's a big problem of itself.

[login]

This is probably the wrong forum as it is more political theory based rather than federal in scope but I have comments regarding income sharing between the worker and the man.

It really doesn't matter. What matters is purchasing power parity or atleast the ability to meet the cost of living index, in regard to being able to afford the cost of living.

Businesses don't have living needs in the same way, you could create a CCLI or corporate cost of living, and realize that in Canada we are competeing with global businesses for export and domestic markets, against powerhouses like China and the US, as such in order for our domestic economy not to be eroded we must have income for protectionistic measures to sustain national corporations from foreign competition. What is more revealing would be the income share of foreign companies and national companies (majority owned by Canadians) as well as the amount of national products bought as opposed to imports. This is far more revealing of the health of the domestic economy.

After cost of living, life style is open game, but the cost of lifestyle is depedent on what media defines as luxury for a given culture or subculture, to appease their sufficiency in their lifestyle, for some that may have very little monetary value and may be more tied to nature or community.

Part of the issue is bias toward materialism which creates waste, as junk luxury is not a benefit, it is a loss.

Many people would not even need a car, but they are indoctrinated by socializing forces such as media to value cars so they buy cars even if they offer no economic advantage to them, or even a loss for them.

If you don't like your pay get a new job or start a business. I'm not pro labour because ultimately it is an individuals choice to work for someone or not, if they do obviously they are getting a better deal than if they weren't if they realize that choice and can maturely do a cost benefit analysis of their employment situation.

Either god will provide or you will be closer to god.

Most need far less than they have. Materialistic capitalism is gluttony for excess. Labour and production should be tied to fullfilling needs, determining needs is one part culture and one part psychology.

If labour ain't makin it they arn't buyin it. Don't take the lower wage and maybe someone else might not, it doesn't take a union but someone might need less resulting in less overproduction and less waste production due to restrained ability for an excess lifestyle creating cultural efficiency.

Is excess sustainable? Is it beneficial, can everyone have it all? Someones got to make it, and if you can't make it yourself, someone is getting short changed. The question that remains, is do they have excess, and if so, does it matter?

Labour isn't loosing, go to the third world and think again. Canada has excess. I can eat more from my lawn than people in Somolia have been faced with.

Do you have food on the table, is their flour and rice on you store shelves that you can afford?

https://www.wfp.org/donate/sahel-freerice-banners?utm_source=freerice.com&utm_medium=banners_549x90&utm_campaign=fr_sahel

The real crisis is boomer retirement and pension lifestyle, there will be jobs for the youth, but domestic mechanization is not being tooled to provide materials for the boomers.

What will they buy?

At this rate it will be expensive food, that is being inflated due to demand from export markets.

This from Florida.

http://tinyurl.com/8jzazrd

The dependence on petrofertalizers and post peak oil inflation might even jepordize a chunk of that food supply.

There is no labour crisis there are only lazy people who are not trained to provide for their wants themselves. Use your resources to make more if you want more, rather than depending on a handout from someone managing your life. Working for someone else is only a good undertaking if they are working for you and giving you the best deal possible. Employment is a business contract. Don't take the deal if it ain't the best one.

Edited August 9, 2012 by login

[bleeding heart]

There is no labour crisis there are only lazy people who are not trained to provide for their wants themselves.

I think this is too harsh...in great part because it oversimplifies.

I wouldn't be so complacent, personally, about condemning such a broad swath of human beings.

[login]

I think this is too harsh...in great part because it oversimplifies.

I wouldn't be so complacent, personally, about condemning such a broad swath of human beings.

Ok, they are lazy or stupid. Stupidity in part has to do with a lack of interest or awareness of the posibilities of expanding their horizons. Failing that they are greedy and want more than what they need.

If people can accept the bottom everything above them given is a bonus.

Sure a lot is circumstancial I'll give you that, as there are people with clubs batting down the sharks so they can steer the ship and get the booty, but I don't think the entire economy is controlled, there is some room, but to be honest if you want to get into business why not go for an MBnA.

Lots of people have started from humble roots and been successful, there is no saying that someone cannot if circumstances provide. Personally I abhor capitalism and materialism, likewise I dread forced socialization- but not to give it away am generally a Libertarian in my political beleifs - but don't rest there as there seem to be many different flavours of Libertarians. None the less it is harsh world, there are many issues but people arn't forced to work for other people, and they always have the exit they can take if they don't want to work for someone else, it is their choice fact is business is providing services, why not start with yourself and expand from there.

Edited August 10, 2012 by login

[westguy]

Good point, MB! The younger guys on this board have no idea of the way things used to be. In the early 70's the typical North American car was beat after only 3 years! Sometimes it was even worse. The "Rusty Ford Owners" lobby group was formed then over new cars rusting out after less than 18 months. I remember a neighbour having wheel wells completely rusted out in their Chevy station wagon after only 1 winter!

I had a brand new 1977 Chryler van that put me in the poorhouse! Secret warrantees, catalytic converters that broke inside and then plugged up, an automatic choke that didn't work and kept the van from starting from October through May (I finally ripped it out and installed a manual control), a differential that burned out at 80k kms - the list went on and I was very frustrated. I was just a young feller starting out and these problems were a real financial hardship.

Finally I sold the damn thing and bought a VW convertible. My gas costs dropped from $300 a month to less than $50! Considering my loan payment was $350 per month this was great! My girlfriend and I took it up north to a camp ground. The first morning it was parked by our tent, gleaming in the sun. A fellow came by and commented on how good it looked. As the conversation went on he began to hint around about how I should feel guilty about taking away Canadian autoworkers' jobs. Turned out he worked at a Chrysler transmission plant in Windsor. I couldn't help it, I lost it! I dumped all the problems I had with my van on top of him! I explained how the Chrysler warranty process was just a run around and waste of time. His defense was that it was all management's fault and if I had brought my van around to the back door of his plant all the problems would have been fixed for free!

This was just nuts! Even if true, I had no way of knowing this and Windsor was at least a 5 hour drive away from Hamilton. I said that if they didn't make crap in the first place I wouldn't have bought a VW!

Then I told him that as an autoworker he likely made at least twice the wage that I was making. I didn't see what made him so special that I was supposed to support HIS job! What had the autoworkers ever done for ME?

At that point he left.

The point is that imports did not take market share back then solely on price. Often it was on quality. So much of domestic product was simply crap! When customers were offered better choices, can you blame them for jumping at them?

Union members speak only for their own selfishness - not the good of the country

[Wilber]

No kidding Bill. Companies spend millions to create "brand" names so they can trade on the success of that Brand. Corvette, Mustang, Gran Prix, and Taurus are some of the brands that have survived. A brand can't survive if their reputation is damaged. True, some names just become dated.....but back in the 70's and 80's, brands were discontinued - never to be heard of again - because of reliability and quite frankly - they were just crappy cars. To name just a few brands that have come and gone:

From GM: Beretta, Corsica, Omega, Ventura, Phoenix, Citation

From Chrsler: Aries, Reliant, Omni, Horizon, Dynasty, Conquest, Concorde, Cirrus, Cordoba, Avenger

From Ford: Maverick, Fiesta, Contour, Asprire, Probe, Pinto, Zephyr, Marauder, Grenada

I'm sure people can think of many more.

Everyone built crappy cars in the 70's. Early Honda's and Datsun's rusted before your eyes. Even VW's were rust buckets compared to anything you can buy today and early Hyundai's were crap. Competition has made everyone build better cars.

On Edit

The fact most Japanese and European auto manufacturers are unionized never prevented them from building good cars.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Wilber

[TwoDucks]

To everyone complaining about entitlement, I agree. Too many corporations and individuals have gotten rich from our system but refuse to pay their share in maintaining it. In a lawless society, they'd have to pay their way in protection money, shouldering their own infrastructure costs, increased risk, etc.