4 ms·

Have you ever heard of JIT Manufacturing? or just in time manufacturing? The process was DEVELOPED by the Japanese in the 80's to compete with the American gi

by jdavid 18y ago

Have you ever heard of JIT Manufacturing? or just in time manufacturing? The process was DEVELOPED by the Japanese in the 80's to compete with the American giants. The Japanese do not produce a car, until they know it is needed. It took the American car companies decades to catch on, and even then labor unions prevent the auto industry from moving from human labor to machine labor, which can be cheaper than even a Chinese laborer. We can produce cars cheaper than Japan, we just don't want to sacrifice millions of jobs doing it. Where the Japanese have found a way to move forwards. Labor unions have had such a grasp on the airlines, education, and the auto industry its no wonder that we need to consider bailing these industries out. They are the most socialist industries in the country. If we need to save these industries, I do think we need to use government funds, but shouldn't they be economic development funds? Rather than cash that will be burned on failed employment standards?

mtw 18y ago
JIT ftw! (it led to agile development)
mdasen 18y ago
I agree to an extent with what you've said. I think labor is a balance. GM had it swing too far toward labor. However, if you're an auto worker, there's likely only one employer in your town which gives that employer undue power. Ideally, there are many employers that demand the same skill set that you can get a job with. In that case, you have the choice of many firms and the firms have the choice of many workers and it works out pretty well. Since there are only a few auto manufacturers and the likelihood that there's more than two in your commutable distance is low means that auto manufacturers have the power necessary to abuse their workers without unions. However, unions became ultra-effective in many places demanding things like pay even when plants aren't used and benefits fit for a king. GM agreed to that because, at the time, the auto industry was really just Ford and GM and the unions were sticking it to Ford too and so it didn't matter so much. That's changed, but the UAW won't face the post-80s reality. Having workers have no power is bad. Having companies have no power is bad. Having each group have equal power works pretty well.

by jdavid 18y ago

mtw 18y ago

JIT ftw! (it led to agile development)

mdasen 18y ago

I agree to an extent with what you've said. I think labor is a balance. GM had it swing too far toward labor. However, if you're an auto worker, there's likely only one employer in your town which gives that employer undue power. Ideally, there are many employers that demand the same skill set that you can get a job with. In that case, you have the choice of many firms and the firms have the choice of many workers and it works out pretty well. Since there are only a few auto manufacturers and the likelihood that there's more than two in your commutable distance is low means that auto manufacturers have the power necessary to abuse their workers without unions. However, unions became ultra-effective in many places demanding things like pay even when plants aren't used and benefits fit for a king. GM agreed to that because, at the time, the auto industry was really just Ford and GM and the unions were sticking it to Ford too and so it didn't matter so much. That's changed, but the UAW won't face the post-80s reality. Having workers have no power is bad. Having companies have no power is bad. Having each group have equal power works pretty well.