An Open Letter to Senator Richard Shelby
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Help me understand why a State consistently ranked lowest in education quality and number of engineering degrees awarded feels compelled to eliminate the nation's largest concentration of professional engineers.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
I don't see the conflict here, and the rest of your rambling diatribe makes little sense.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 176
From: Cleveland, OH
So technology and educated engineers cease to exist because the auto industry enters a violent period of consolidation and M&A activity ?
This letter fails from the aspect of persuation. It's a personal note and i don't think directed at the right person.
This letter fails from the aspect of persuation. It's a personal note and i don't think directed at the right person.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 506
From: Columbia, SC
and CNN is still the media, which is still skewed. 80-90% of americans dont understand, and wont take the time to research, and try to understand what the bills such as the TARP, or the Auto-Loan Situation really truely means,and how passing or not passing them, can and eventually will effect them.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 142
From: Lansing, MI
Remember. Most people's jobs do not depend on the auto industries survival. If they did this would have passed already. However most everyone has a mortgage, bank account, savings, and investments. When you threaten those people get excited.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,224
From: CNY
It IS an interesting point of view. Thanks for posting it.
I believe the systematic dismantling of the American manufacturing sector goes FAR beyond the line workers. Why would we need engineers, designers, drafters, CAD operators, scientists, researchers, etc, etc, if we don't intend to build anything here?
Who would have ever thought that it would be hard to find an engineering job in America? Certainly not parents, teachers, guidance counselors, job counselors, etc.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Jason,
It IS an interesting point of view. Thanks for posting it.
I believe the systematic dismantling of the American manufacturing sector goes FAR beyond the line workers. Why would we need engineers, designers, drafters, CAD operators, scientists, researchers, etc, etc, if we don't intend to build anything here?
Who would have ever thought that it would be hard to find an engineering job in America? Certainly not parents, teachers, guidance counselors, job counselors, etc.
It IS an interesting point of view. Thanks for posting it.
I believe the systematic dismantling of the American manufacturing sector goes FAR beyond the line workers. Why would we need engineers, designers, drafters, CAD operators, scientists, researchers, etc, etc, if we don't intend to build anything here?
Who would have ever thought that it would be hard to find an engineering job in America? Certainly not parents, teachers, guidance counselors, job counselors, etc.
In the same environment, the manufacturing sector is being gradually killed off, and we are also seeing less graduates from engineering backgrounds etc... as a result.
Therefore, the brightest outlook is for graduates in economics, accounting, law and medicine etc...
Without government support of certain industries, it's obvious (to me) that the specialist roles will be lost to the developing nations where human and material resources are far cheaper. That's how the free market is influencing skill shortages... in the very areas where some countries have excelled.
Does the United States Have a Free Market?
One of the tenets of capitalism is that a free market fails from time to time. The market should be able to correct itself by ridding itself of the poorly performing businesses and investments that dragged it down. But the United States has a long shown a lack of faith in the free market's natural correction mechanism.
In times of financial crisis, the United States has customarily turned to capitalism's antithesis -- socialism -- to artificially correct the markets. The very existence of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alone indicates the U.S. economy isn't a free market. For the first 116 years after it was established in 1817, the New York Stock Exchange operated without government regulation. Following the crash on Oct. 24, 1929, the federal government held hearings that revealed the types of fraud corporations used to mislead and swindle investors. These hearings led to unprecedented government oversight of the stock market. For one, corporations now had to file earnings reports with the newly formed SEC, which had the ability to audit these companies [source: Berenson].
But the SEC's formation in 1934 was hardly the U.S. government's first foray into business. By the end of the 19th century, the government concluded that major corporations such as Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel and Union Pacific Railroad had grown too powerful. As a result, a spate of laws and bureaucracies were created to offset this power. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlawed monopolies. The Food and Drug Administration was created in 1904 and vested with litigation of companies that broke new purity laws. The Federal Trade Commission was created in 1914 to regulate competition among American companies. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established a national minimum wage for workers (25 cents an hour) [source: Dept. of Labor]. Under a pure capitalist system, none of these laws or entities should exist.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/free-market-economy2.htm
One of the tenets of capitalism is that a free market fails from time to time. The market should be able to correct itself by ridding itself of the poorly performing businesses and investments that dragged it down. But the United States has a long shown a lack of faith in the free market's natural correction mechanism.
In times of financial crisis, the United States has customarily turned to capitalism's antithesis -- socialism -- to artificially correct the markets. The very existence of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alone indicates the U.S. economy isn't a free market. For the first 116 years after it was established in 1817, the New York Stock Exchange operated without government regulation. Following the crash on Oct. 24, 1929, the federal government held hearings that revealed the types of fraud corporations used to mislead and swindle investors. These hearings led to unprecedented government oversight of the stock market. For one, corporations now had to file earnings reports with the newly formed SEC, which had the ability to audit these companies [source: Berenson].
But the SEC's formation in 1934 was hardly the U.S. government's first foray into business. By the end of the 19th century, the government concluded that major corporations such as Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel and Union Pacific Railroad had grown too powerful. As a result, a spate of laws and bureaucracies were created to offset this power. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlawed monopolies. The Food and Drug Administration was created in 1904 and vested with litigation of companies that broke new purity laws. The Federal Trade Commission was created in 1914 to regulate competition among American companies. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established a national minimum wage for workers (25 cents an hour) [source: Dept. of Labor]. Under a pure capitalist system, none of these laws or entities should exist.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/free-market-economy2.htm
Last edited by SSbaby; Dec 19, 2008 at 01:53 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Without government support of certain industries, it's obvious (to me) that the specialist roles will be lost to the developing nations where human and material resources are far cheaper. That's how the free market is influencing skill shortages... in the very areas where some countries have excelled.
Last time I checked, capitalists like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison created companies that withstood some absolutely horrible times in this country, and those same companies have employed hundreds of thousands of engineers and contributed mightily to the world's understanding of technology.
Capitalism as a system is a tool, and like most tools, it can be used for good or evil. If you've got a problem with the way that it's currently deployed, look no further than the men who are abusing the system for personal gain.
Feel free to suggest better ideas.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
There's a big f'in' difference between regulation - which is what your quoted article referenced (and if you want a close analogy for the car industry, look no further than the NHTSA in the US) - and handouts to weak companies, which has little historical precedence in the US outside of the banking industry.
Last time I checked, capitalists like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison created companies that withstood some absolutely horrible times in this country, and those same companies have employed hundreds of thousands of engineers and contributed mightily to the world's understanding of technology.
Capitalism as a system is a tool, and like most tools, it can be used for good or evil. If you've got a problem with the way that it's currently deployed, look no further than the men who are abusing the system for personal gain.
Feel free to suggest better ideas.
Last time I checked, capitalists like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison created companies that withstood some absolutely horrible times in this country, and those same companies have employed hundreds of thousands of engineers and contributed mightily to the world's understanding of technology.
Capitalism as a system is a tool, and like most tools, it can be used for good or evil. If you've got a problem with the way that it's currently deployed, look no further than the men who are abusing the system for personal gain.
Feel free to suggest better ideas.
There is a big difference between weak companies and a weak industry. Therefore the problem becomes more than just one of poor management of a weak company.
Under capitalism, some companies thrive more than others. The companies that thrive are sourcing cheaper avenues (as a result of competition) from other countries as they've usually exhausted their available options domestically. This places some companies and industries at an obvious disadvantage.
Is it any coincidence that the banks operate globally to take advantage of real time market fluctuations to make their money? By the same token, under such economies, we are seeing even the most powerful of automakers experience a severe downturn in fortunes (Toyota).
I know you've stated that Toyota are victims of their own success but that says little for the rest of the automakers. A crowded market? Yes, but just how many automakers have made profits on a regular basis? And why do we need to flood already crowded markets with even cheaper alternatives which do nothing but erode the fortunes of other automakers? Unlike the horse and cart days, we are not losing skills per se, we are just losing it to other nations.
There have been many arguments about how government has partly caused the problems that the car industry is now facing. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but the government could also have done more earlier instead of just letting the industry slowly die. It is a good opportunity for the government to redress the problems its created under the 'free market' system.
To answer your question wrt a better idea... why does there have to be a hard and fast rule? It's like saying I will date blondes because they're more fun... It's best to determine what the most important industries are to a country and then come up with ideas on how to help those industries flourish without the need for further govt funding. Go with the flow, I say and adapt rules accordingly. The environment today is vastly different to what it was 50 years ago.
Anyway, I do see some irony in the fact that you believe GM should be forced into bankruptcy at the risk of the whole auto industry... it wouldn't exactly encourage a heap of would be engineering students to take up college positions.
Last edited by SSbaby; Dec 19, 2008 at 11:43 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
While the great engineering minds of Silicon Valley fret over packing more songs into an Ipod or downloading television shows faster, the engineers and scientists of the automotive industry are searching for the technology to reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and the world's consumption of fossil fuels.
Still, taken on the whole, a nice editorial.
