REDUCING AMERICA'S DEPENDENCY!

[NickF1011]

It is all part of the same problem. If you understand how banks create money, and that it is generageted through a promise of debt. Than you have to understand that with a high number of people not working affects the growth of your personal investment. The rich have all the money and are not allowing it to trickle down. People with a lack of decent income are buying less, and commiting to less loans mainly, because their income does not support todays pricing. This is inturn is slowing sales, and growth in companies. This inturn limits, reduces, or even yeilds losses in your investment portfolio! The rich are tapping out the U.S. retail market by out sourcing work, while the winners are the ones with good solid foreign investments in growing industrialized nations! Whether it be monitary or manufacturing investment in cheap labor markets!

 

I wouldn't say anything is being "tapped out" just yet. It's not like the loss of manufacturing jobs has just been a recent occurance. It has been happening for decades, yet the economy has been rolling pretty well, with only a couple dips during that time. People have been fearing the loss of jobs and the increasing wealth of the wealthy ever since there was a job base and there were wealthy people. But yeah, the strongest performing area in my 401K right now are the emerging market funds -- however, it's also the most volatile. No surprise.

[Edstock]

Check out a documentary called The Corporation. It points out where they can cause problems.

 

You can see it at

 

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA50FBC214A6CE87

 

The people who made it are at

 

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Your Government are great they just awarded Airbus a $40 Billion contract, good old Bushie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7272272.stm

[NickF1011]

Your Government are great they just awarded Airbus a $40 Billion contract, good old Bushie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7272272.stm

 

Oh wow. I'll have to defend that contract HERE too? That contract was to EADS and Northrop Grumman, NOT Airbus specifically, and the vast majority of assembly of the KC-45A will be done in the USA. The program is expected to create 2000+ new American jobs and will support an additional 25,000 previously existing American jobs. Final fuselage assembly and ALL military componentry will be completed on US soil.

 

All of that for a price far lower than what Boeing was trying to weasel away....

[silvrsvt]

Your Government are great they just awarded Airbus a $40 Billion contract, good old Bushie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7272272.stm

 

With most of the manufacturing work done in the good ole USA.

 

Anyways Boeing totally stepped on their dicks a couple years ago with the leasing scandal that happened when they where going to make KC767 for the US Air Force, payback is a bitch.

 

What people fail to recognize is that the US still makes airplanes, Heavy Equipment and other things that are MANUFACTURED. We don't need to be making every single stupid thing that our country needs or wants, when it can be made cheaper overseas.

 

People cry the sky is falling, the sky is falling, yet the US still has the worlds largest GDP of any country in the world by a long shot, something like 4 Billon more then the next closest country...sure there are problems, but blowing them out of proportion isn't going to fix anything

Edited March 11, 2008 by silvrsvt

[Ron W.]

Your Government are great they just awarded Airbus a $40 Billion contract, good old Bushie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7272272.stm

 

You don't want my opinion of Bush. And no insult meant but my thoughts are that money should have stayed in the U.S.

[NickF1011]

You don't want my opinion of Bush. And no insult meant but my thoughts are that money should have stayed in the U.S.

 

The VAST majority of it is...and it is costing the government less to do it.

[jpd80]

Well, if you don't want foreigners to build military equipment, don't put it out to tender.

Looks like the military got more bang for their bucks:

'Outsourcing'

 

Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force's Air Mobility Command,

said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing's tanker.

 

 

The average age of current US refuelling planes is nearly 50 years

 

"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," he said.

 

 

It's not all bad news, the tankers will be built in Europe but assembled in the US:

 

 

But the news was a boon for Alabama Republican congressman Jo Bonner.

 

"We are so very excited about having the opportunity to help the Air Force acquire the most modern and capable refuelling tanker - a tanker assembled in America by Americans," he said.

[NickF1011]

It's not all bad news, the tankers will be built in Europe but assembled in the US:

 

Even that is a bit misleading. The components of the fuselage will be manufactured by EADS in Europe but final fuselage assembly will be completed by EADS in Mobile, Alabama, with final assembly of the tanker/military components being finished by Northrop Grumman at a nearby location.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

The VAST majority of it is...and it is costing the government less to do it.

 

LOL Most of the Bae/Airbus Tanker contracts have ended up costing 10 mores in the end in the past, hope the US Government have got deep pockets Nick.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds

[NickF1011]

LOL Most of the Bae/Airbus Tanker contracts have ended up costing 10 mores in the end in the past, hope the US Goverment have got deep pockets Nick.

 

Well, the KC-45A is being based on a tanker already built by EADS-Northrop Grumman for Australia. I haven't heard any cost overrun issues with that project....

 

Of course, when it comes to military contracts, they ALL tend to run over budget at some point, regardless of who is heading it up -- just ask Lockheed Martin and their F-35 program manager.

Edited March 11, 2008 by NickF1011

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Well, the KC-45A is being based on a tanker already built by EADS-Northrop Grumman for Australia. I haven't heard any cost overrun issues with that project....

 

Of course, when it comes to military contracts, they ALL tend to run over budget at some point, regardless of who is heading it up -- just ask Lockheed Martin and their F-35 program manager.

 

I was thinking of Euro fighter, Tornado, RAF Nimrod & VC 10 Tanker contracts that went billions over budget. Have a look at CNBC there are some great videos on Airbus bugets and overspends at the moment.

[Edstock]

I was thinking of Euro fighter, Tornado, RAF Nimrod & VC 10 Tanker contracts that went billions over budget. Have a look at CNBC there are some great videos on Airbus bugets and overspends at the moment.

 

Sure, they may have gone over-budget, but at least you did get the Euro fighter, Tornado, RAF Nimrod & VC 10 Tanker to the gawddam flight-line. It might have cost more than people wanted, but at least you finally got the hardware.

 

Over-spending is relative, too. With the above in mind, check out this sorry tale of $200 BILLION:

 

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/post.html

 

Army's $200 Billion Reboot Fizzles

[xr7g428]

I get it. Great jobs working for Ford are threatened. It feels like the world is coming to an end. But it isn't grounds for losing track of reality.

 

It is very unlikely that a high school education and a commitment to work physically hard will be enough to guarantee an upper middle class life style in the future. Sorry about that. Probably the best that can be hoped for is that manufacturing at Ford will pay about as well as being a cop, a school teacher, or a mid level white collar worker. The AVERAGE income for all workers in the US is about $40K.

 

There are two different issues: manufacturing in the US, and US manufacturing jobs. The value of goods maufactured in the US has not shrunk by any where near as much as the number of jobs. We still manufacture more than half of all of the goods manufactured in the entire world. All manufacturing in the US is becoming less and less labor dependent. New US manufacturing jobs are being created, but they don't look or feel like old school manufacturing.

 

Most manufacturing jobs lost were at the low end of the scale. Making a coffee pot never paid the same as making cars. These were never "good paying" jobs. Many of the items that are currently made in China used to be made in Japan, and then Korea, and then Taiwan. Chinese companies are now moving manufacturing to India.

 

Less than 10% of the population works in manufacturing in the US. If all were unemployed, the total unemployment rate in the US would still be lower than Germany.

 

I am not a Bush supporter, but the link to the article about job loss during the Bush admin is just plain false. It just goes to show you how hard people will work to gin up discontent.

 

Super Sector: Total privateIndustry: Total privateNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1998 104858 105031 105169 105422 105764 105972 106040 106363 106555 106732 106973 107280

1999 107396 107746 107828 108135 108356 108579 108803 108959 109132 109487 109742 109992

2000 110210 110303 110641 110858 110738 110952 111135 111168 111392 111373 111587 111681

2001 111634 111624 111555 111227 111146 110910 110737 110544 110276 109918 109575 109368

2002 109214 109054 108989 108892 108814 108824 108732 108671 108659 108772 108758 108595

2003 108640 108484 108286 108252 108274 108233 108231 108266 108421 108570 108611 108724

2004 108879 108898 109189 109433 109729 109840 109890 109973 110144 110466 110506 110637

2005 110732 110941 111066 111372 111538 111816 112089 112292 112418 112541 112864 112996

2006 113263 113511 113748 113882 113898 113996 114180 114353 114472 114539 114710 114899

2007 115005 115006 115167 115195 115332 115423 115512 115544 115610 115715 115759 115745

2008 115719(p) 115618(p)

 

 

There are more people working for cell phone companies today than worked for Bell before the break up.

 

Boeing is currently back ordered on planes for the foreseeable future. Airbus is moving jobs to the US as the reduced value of the dollar is making US labor more competitive. No one outsourced to China or anywhere else unless they got a reduced price. All Chinese goods have increased by 10% in price over last year due to the currency change alone. Everyday, US produced goods are becoming more cost competitive. The increased price of oil has doubled the cost of shipping from China to US consumers.

 

Increasingly, companies are looking at bringing products back to the US, but they will do it in new higher tech facilities that replace labor with automation. The price of automation never goes up, once those factories are built, they tend to stay. The US has been faced with a manufacturing dilemma. US factories were still standing after WWII. This was a huge advantage in the 50's and 60's, but those old factories were not as productive as the new factories built in Germany and Japan. As industrialization spread through the pacific rim those factories were again surpassed by new technologies, and even more efficient manufacturing. Now things are just beginning to come back full circle. The US has the opportunity to leap frog back into the manufacturing sector with new technology. Having the cheapest labor, is less and less of a requirement when the labor per unit of production is dropping. It also means that the production jobs that are created can pay well. they just won't be the kind of manual labor jobs they used to be.

[silvrsvt]

Over-spending is relative, too. With the above in mind, check out this sorry tale of $200 BILLION:

 

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/post.html

 

Army's $200 Billion Reboot Fizzles

 

The Future Combat System is a bit too advanced/ambitious in my mind...they wanted the same protection found in the current Bradley and Abrams in a 19 ton vehicle! Keep in mind that Bradley weighs in at 35 tons and the Abrams is over 60 Tons! Then add in all the computer stuff they want to do with it and well you have some major problems. I wont even get on the topic about trying to design a 21st Century combat vehicle to fit into a plane designed in 1950-60's

[Furious1Auto]

Oh wow. I'll have to defend that contract HERE too? That contract was to EADS and Northrop Grumman, NOT Airbus specifically, and the vast majority of assembly of the KC-45A will be done in the USA. The program is expected to create 2000+ new American jobs and will support an additional 25,000 previously existing American jobs. Final fuselage assembly and ALL military componentry will be completed on US soil.

 

All of that for a price far lower than what Boeing was trying to weasel away....

The way it was reported on T.V. was that there will only be only 2000 prioduction jobs brought to thr U.S. VS. the 45,000 jobs it secured if Boeing had been awarded the contract!

Edited March 12, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[Nick Martin]

The way it was reported on T.V. was that there will only be only 2000 prioduction jobs brought to thr U.S. VS. the 45,000 jobs it secured if Boeing had been awarded the contract!

 

45,000? I have to ask where you got that number. Not that I think you are making it up, but I work for Boeing, and that sounds a bit big to me.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

45,000? I have to ask where you got that number. Not that I think you are making it up, but I work for Boeing, and that sounds a bit big to me.

 

Still the better guys got the contract Airbus, Nimrod MRA4s ended up costing over double the original asking price and will be only 7 years late and they still might not work.

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2007/1...ting-lives.html

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Well, if you don't want foreigners to build military equipment, don't put it out to tender.

Looks like the military got more bang for their bucks:

It's not all bad news, the tankers will be built in Europe but assembled in the US:

 

Your right JDP it looks like the US Government have got a real bargin from Airbus?

 

In 2007 the RAF finally took the first deliveries of the very pretty, very agile, and very expensive Eurofighter or Typhoon aircraft. This monstrously expensive white elephant is officially 'just' 4 years late although it has taken over 20 years to develop at cost the UK alone a whopping 19 Billion pounds - nearly 3 times the original quoted cost of £7 Billion!

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/articles/2...esis-of-rn.html

Edited March 12, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Furious1Auto]

45,000? I have to ask where you got that number. Not that I think you are making it up, but I work for Boeing, and that sounds a bit big to me.

Take your pick, there are a slew of Links within this LINK to choose from to verify my statement! I would think it more a matter of National security to build our military planes In-house. If anyone can do meanial assembly work. What will prevent Airbus from selling these sub assemblies built to U.S. specs to our enemies with their own variation of our guidence system. I'm not a fear monger but I believe in this case job loss due to this descision is the least of our worries! How much extra are you whiling to pay to for piece of mind?

Edited March 12, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[Nick Martin]

Wow, thanks!

 

The way I read the initial statement was that the Boeing deal would secure 45,000 "existing US jobs. In fact, the deal could have potentially generated 45,000 new US jobs, not necessarily manufacturing jobs or Boeing jobs. The Airbus deal could potentially generate 25,000 US jobs. As for keeping the technology in-house, Airbus is simply supplying the A330. Northrop Grumman is modifying the existing aircraft for Air Force needs. I don't work in defense, so I don't know any more than anyone else on these forums.

[Edstock]

What will prevent Airbus from selling these sub assemblies built to U.S. specs to our enemies with their own variation of our guidence system. I'm not a fear monger but I believe in this case job loss due to this descision is the least of our worries! How much extra are you whiling to pay to for piece of mind?

 

Relax. It's just a tanker with nothing special in it at the Airbus factory. The Russkies and the Euro's don't care, because it's nothing they don't already do. The Chinese and the Indians have already bought that kind of tech already, as well, though they are still getting their manufacturing capability together.

[CarShark]

Wait. Couldn't the cost savings have come from the fact that they aren't hiring so many people? Wouldn't that be both a good and a bad thing?

[NickF1011]

Take your pick, there are a slew of Links within this LINK to choose from to verify my statement! I would think it more a matter of National security to build our military planes In-house. If anyone can do meanial assembly work. What will prevent Airbus from selling these sub assemblies built to U.S. specs to our enemies with their own variation of our guidence system. I'm not a fear monger but I believe in this case job loss due to this descision is the least of our worries! How much extra are you whiling to pay to for piece of mind?

 

There will be absolutely NOTHING proprietary being built outside the US. The only components being assembled overseas are all the standard Airbus A330 parts that are the same ones used on their commercial aircraft. Any modifications to those standard specs will be completed during final assembly at the EADS and Northrop Grumman facilities in the US.

[NickF1011]

Wait. Couldn't the cost savings have come from the fact that they aren't hiring so many people? Wouldn't that be both a good and a bad thing?

 

There really is no difference in the hire numbers. Boeing was planning about 2000 additional new workers, the same as EADS and NGC. The "45,000" number basically refers to people who will contribute but already have jobs with the company, the same as the NGC number of 25,000. It's all just number shuffling. Basically, Boeing is trying to make EADS and NGC look like the bad guy because they are pissed they lost a uni-lateral no-bid contract that they were years behind on delivering.

Edited March 12, 2008 by NickF1011