« Previous — Next »
Is This America? John, Hillary and Barack
19 February 2008After millions of dollars, countless polls, handshakes, bus trips, plane trips, babies kissed this is it, we are down to 3 candidates.
But do they represent America? Do they represent a strong slice across America? No, they don’t. While they are singularly unique individuals, they are not representative of America. Indeed representative Americans got voted out of the race. Let alone for now the question do we want a representative American for president. We’ll take on that question at the end, when I figure where this post is going.
First, none of the big three (Hillary, John and Barack) have ever had a real job, the kind that most Americans think of as a job. None have ever called employees in one at a time and said, “I’m sorry the sales aren’t there, we are cutting back.”. Has anyone ever in government said, “I’m sorry the taxes aren’t there, we are cutting back your government job”? Probably close to zilch if ever. Or, “I’m sorry engineering made a mistake, and the product we spent a ton of money on does not work.” No, usually government programs just go on and on and on, even if they are obvious failures, government does not need the feedback of the market place. They collect taxes no matter what.
I am willing to cut the Big Mac some slack on this one, he has worked in an organization where failure had real consequences and accountability was held. The funding side of that organization is of course taxes and any one whose has followed defense procurement should be deeply deeply troubled. Large defense companies have placed facilities in just about every major congressional district creating large built advocates for just about every major defense program, some of which are questionable in need. No congressman/woman will vote against a defense program that means jobs in their district, heck they can’t vote against any spending program.
The big three all know at some theoretical level that all wealth is derived from human capital whether labor or mental. But till you’ve worked the trenches, pushed a product out the door, answered the irate customer phone calls, dealt with the petty union complaints that cost thousands per grievance, dealt with suppliers who have their own set of problems including the set of scrap they just shipped you, it is just too easy to take the wealth producing engine of America for granted.
Hillary’s and Barack’s stand on unionism shows a complete lack of understanding of the global market forces facing American businesses and in the end it will hurt their voters a lot more than it will help.
There is little difference in manufacturing in the USA and the Pacific Rim or India. These are very capable and driven people, they want the US lifestyle and they are working hard to get it. They represent growth markets larger than the USA. The technology of manufacturing is portable, it can and does move. Automation can be set up quickly in China, India and elsewhere very quickly. What separates the US from overseas in the global competition on where goods will be manufactured is the cost of labor. And their labor is a lot cheaper than others.
Raising the cost of American goods by supporting yesterday’s unionism is a bad policy. Do you think the average facility manager in Asia is discussing rule 10.4.5 part B of the union handbook? Do you think the Asian manager is having a heated discussion on whether an Electrician Class 3 can change out a plug in PLC or do they have to wait for a Class 2? Who is boating, and will come in for double time. These are real problems. The union steward says the company is at fault for lost production time, they didn’t staff propertly, the production manager who could swap the PLC him/herself in minutes is thinking somewhat differently.
Both Hillary and Barack have a strong union platform, it’s sad how that policy will hurt their supporters.
Government service is not a normal job, they are not subjected to market forces. While government does provide services that the private sector can’t or will not fill, it is paid for by the private sector.
Taking solace in that the engineering and design work is done here in the US is a short term fool’s dream. Engineering follows manufacturing. It always does. The engineers must be close to their production lines. It always follows. Remote design facilities never last long term. Being close to your customer is a huge competitive advantage.
Manufacturing is the customer of engineering. Any idiot in business more than six months will tell you that. Look at UTC’s movement of production facilities and engineering jobs.
General Motors lost a lot of money this past quarter, what money they did make was overseas. Last I checked Hill and Rack didn’t get the memo. McCain was probably being most honest when he said, “those jobs aren’t coming back.” Definitely not with the current crew we’ve got in Washington.
How many engineering jobs are still in the US or CT for that matter. They are leaving have left. Have you tried to hire aerospace engineers in CT lately? (For those of you not residents of Connecticut, USA. Connecticut is home of Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Standard, Goodrich Aerospace, Colt, Smith & Wesson (just over the border in MA), Remington, Savage Firearms and many many smaller companies.)
The private sector is subject to market forces and so should government.
A good way to keep government under control would be to limit size to a percent of the gross domestic product. Force government to live within it’s means or source of income, it would also more finely focus the attention span of our employees and force them to prioritize their spending.
Back to the question, do we want a representative American for president.
Hell no. But ones with some basic business experience would be really nice.
No comments yet