LOL... Romnesia

[magley64]

Now I know why you are always on the computer. Its a worthless endeavor for you to leave the house.

If we pay you what the average general laborer in China or India makes, you're not going to be able to afford to live in this country.

[Rod38um]

If we pay you what the average general laborer in China or India makes, you're not going to be able to afford to live in this country.

I know I'm wasting my time responding because you never seem to understand a logical counter point. You always dismiss the point and repeat rhetoric but I'll say it again anyway.

Labor is not the only factor in the cost of doing business. We have a huge domestic market. Many companies would like to be able to afford to manufacture here. If taxes are cheaper here, if regulation was more cost effective to comply with here, if energy prices are lower here for manufacturing equipment and shipping then you can afford to pay decent wages especially when labor costs are a smaller percentage of the cost of your product. As I said, our company's labor cost was .02% of the cost of our product. Energy was our largest cost then taxes and regulatory.

Simply put, a smaller government that requires less to feed it, means we can lower taxes,lure more business and employ more tax payers to share in the burden.

Your assumption is that any company moves here, they must pay the same wage as a third world country, thats just wrong.

[Disclaimer]

https://www.politify.com/

[magley64]

our company's labor cost was .02% of the cost of our product.

What does your company manufacture?

In small and medium volume Blow Molding, direct labor is 15% to 20% of the COST of the product.

you have a mold opening and parts ejecting from the press every minute on average, there needs to be at least one person tending to the press, and depending upon how fast the press is running and how many secondary operations there are, maybe 2 or 3 or 4 people.

most of the cost is fixed, it's the price of the material... The cost of labor directly affects the cost of the final product in a major way...

Where my dad works, same story. Their presses run a little slower on average, but fiberglass reinforced composite compression molding has around 70-75% material, 15-20% labor...

What manufacturing operation do you have that labor is only .02% of your cost?

If it's manufacturing it is either EXTREMELY low volume, with extremely high cost of material, or it's so high volume, and almost completely automated that your business wouldn't employ many people anyway.

[Rod38um]

What does your company manufacture?

In small and medium volume Blow Molding, direct labor is 15% to 20% of the COST of the product.

you have a mold opening and parts ejecting from the press every minute on average, there needs to be at least one person tending to the press, and depending upon how fast the press is running and how many secondary operations there are, maybe 2 or 3 or 4 people.

most of the cost is fixed, it's the price of the material... The cost of labor directly affects the cost of the final product in a major way...

Where my dad works, same story. Their presses run a little slower on average, but fiberglass reinforced composite compression molding has around 70-75% material, 15-20% labor...

What manufacturing operation do you have that labor is only .02% of your cost?

If it's manufacturing it is either EXTREMELY low volume, with extremely high cost of material, or it's so high volume, and almost completely automated that your business wouldn't employ many people anyway.

We are part of the nuclear fuel cycle.

So if where you work labor is 15 -20% and they can still make a profit in this country...... seems to me they could expand if their taxes and regulatory costs were lower.......... See what I mean? But if you raise them as Obama has planned, most likely they will move overseas and you'll be out of a job.

[magley64]

We are part of the nuclear fuel cycle.

So if where you work labor is 15 -20% and they can still make a profit in this country...... seems to me they could expand if their taxes and regulatory costs were lower.......... See what I mean? But if you raise them as Obama has planned, most likely they will move overseas and you'll be out of a job.

you clearly weren't paying attention.

Blow molding = very low density (most of the volume of your final product is air)

If we could cut out he cost of labor, then our products would be MUCH cheaper, and much more competetive.

Unfortunately moving to china or india or mexico would severely blow up our shipping costs. it takes 14 of our largest parts to fill a crate, the parts weigh a little over a pound each...

you can only fit 52 crates on a truck. Now you have a truck that can handle 80,000 lbs of cargo carrying only 1000 lbs of cargo, but still charging you for a full load...

Now if we were manufacturing heavy dense rectagular widgets, (such as Iphones) it would make way more sense to go overseas, just based on labor.

The only regulation that really impacts our bottom line is minimum wage.

Taxes and regulatory costs are all under that big heading of "overhead and energy" which is about 10% (and where my paycheck is drawn from)

70% of that 10% is electricity. We run part grinders and hydraulic press motors 24/7 they draw a great deal of juice.

if you want to improve the bottom line...

Biggest contributor is resin cost, if you cut resin cost by any noticeable amount, we become more competitive (but then all of our competitors would get the same advantage)

Second biggest contributor, Labor.. which is part of the reason we have an initiative to increase automation.

lowest contributor, overhead, and energy.

Edited October 30, 2012 by magley64

[Rod38um]

That may be the only thing keeping you employed. Most companies sell something more than air.... lol I see you point on shipping but I am suspect on your tax and regulation cost numbers. Either way...... as time goes by and we either increase costs or foreign countries decrease cost for business, another company somewhere can see a cheaper path to manufacturing by moving overseas. Its been happening for decades now and as in China, wages have risen, factory workers are demanding benefits and getting them, they have a middle class. There will always be someplace that has cheap labor but there are enough benefits to manufacturing near your supply chain that given good tax rates and reg costs, business will locate here...... but they wont if we do nothing.

[cg2112]

In effect, your also saying its useless to try to compete so you would rather sit here unemployed and wait until the rest of the world passes us economically at which point we will be glad to have any job.

I dont agree........

It's useless to try compete in the same way, absolutely.

We simply can't compete with China when it comes to certain types of manufacturing.

That doesn't mean "sit here unemployed." It means we have to find new and different ways to compete, and it means we need new kinds of jobs.

[Rod38um]

It's useless to try compete in the same way, absolutely.

We simply can't compete with China when it comes to certain types of manufacturing.

That doesn't mean "sit here unemployed." It means we have to find new and different ways to compete, and it means we need new kinds of jobs.

There is no manufacturing that cant be done cheaper overseas under the current structure. If you cant sell your product overseas, it does almost no good. We need positive cash flow in the treasury. Obama learned the hard way with his "green" job stimulus. He pumped billions of tax payer dollars into solar and battery companies. They have now failed but their technology is being manufactured overseas because they cant make a profit manufacturing the same product here.

The point is; if we want to start bringing jobs back, we have to make it cheaper and easier for companies to do business in the US. We have to stop punishing investors with high capital gains rates and we need stop punishing people for bringing profits earned overseas back to the US where they could be invested domestically.

[magley64]

As part of the "nuclear fuel cycle"...

Do you actually manufacture anything?

What experience do you have in a manufacturing environment?

Why don't you understand the simple impact of direct labor being a much larger factor in competition than taxes and regulation in mass manufacturing?

[Rod38um]

As part of the "nuclear fuel cycle"...

Do you actually manufacture anything?

What experience do you have in a manufacturing environment?

Why don't you understand the simple impact of direct labor being a much larger factor in competition than taxes and regulation in mass manufacturing?

Yes we do.

I do understand it. I also understand that every business must calculate all costs when calculating the price of its product, after which they must determine if they can make a profit at that price and can they compete with their competition at that price. Any one of the factors used in this calculation can push a company out of business or into higher profits depending on which way they move.

I also understand that those factors may represent different percentages depending on the company and the product.

If you drive costs up, companies will suffer as will jobs. If you drive costs down, companies will flourish as will jobs.

I and the candidate I support, Romney, support driving costs down, Making doing business here easier and cheaper.

Obama and the democrats support driving costs up making doing business here expensive and difficult.

If you cant see the difference...... cant see the cause and effect...... you simply dont want to see it........

[cg2112]

He pumped billions of tax payer dollars into solar and battery companies. They have now failed but their technology is being manufactured overseas because they cant make a profit manufacturing the same product here.

When you say "They have now failed," do you mean that they have all failed, or that a very small percentage of them have failed?

[Disclaimer]

I think the Daily show did some investigation on that...

Bain invested in failed companies 22% of the time... the govt record under Obama, MUCH better.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78918.html

[magley64]

Now now, once you point out that only 8% of them failed He will just point out that the government should not be in the business of picking "winners and losers"...

[jblosser]

the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.

geez.

[Rod38um]

Bain invested its own money, took a chance with it and it saved failing companies 78% of time while contributing to the treasury by paying taxes along with the now profitable companies who pay taxes and employ people who would have otherwise lost their jobs.

Obama invested tax payer money in companies who were not failing but wanted to take a larger chance and who also had contributed heavily to his campaign.

Now, had Obama invested his own money, all would be fine. But I can assure you that if Romney is elected and he invests billions of tax payer dollars into companies who donated heavily to his campaign and they promptly go broke with no mechanism to recuperate our investment....... you liberals will be squealing like an upside down pig on castration day.

[Disclaimer]

It's ironic you're in the nuke industry... ya know, an industry started with gov't money and still heavily subsidized by our tax dollars.

[Rod38um]

It's ironic you're in the nuke industry... ya know, an industry started with gov't money and still heavily subsidized by our tax dollars.

True, in the name of national defense. However there are components in the cycle that have returned billions to the treasury. The government contracted several components out to private industry, paid them to run it out of the profits they made..... and profits were huge on the power generation end.

[cg2112]

Obama invested tax payer money in companies who were not failing but wanted to take a larger chance and who also had contributed heavily to his campaign.

President Obama's pledge for cleaner energy was one of the reasons he was elected, regardless of who donated to his campaign. Quite frankly, I don't see this as any more troubling than the company who makes our voting machines (Hart Intercivic) being heavy Mitt Romney supporters, to the point where they raised money for him (and, of course, the fact that Governor Romney's son owns some of these machines)

The federal government invests, one way or another, in companies all the time. Energy, communications, transportation, finance, education, you name it, all get federal aid in the form of subsidies, grants, whatever. There's nothing new here.

[magley64]

True, in the name of national defense. However there are components in the cycle that have returned billions to the treasury. The government contracted several components out to private industry, paid them to run it out of the profits they made..... and profits were huge on the power generation end.

So as long as it benefits you, picking winners is fine... but if it doesn't benefit you, how dare they...

Glad you're so transparent.

[Rod38um]

So as long as it benefits you, picking winners is fine... but if it doesn't benefit you, how dare they...

Glad you're so transparent.

Nope...... didnt say that. The past is the past. We have done too much of that in the past. Thats why we are nearing economic collapse with a 16 trillion dollar debt. I cant change it and niether can you, however in the future, I want to see a smaller less intrusive government that requires less revenue to run. I want to see balanced budgets and lower taxes for corporations and individuals. I believe by encouraging business growth in this mannor that the resulting job growth will create more tax payers to share in the revenue burden which hopefully will be smaller than today. I also underssatnd the federal government must play a roll in areas like defense and transportaion. Sure some companies will benefit but a direct kick back or payback should not be tolorated.

The difference magley is I support maximum freedom we can attain while maintaining basic structure of law that allows individuals to profit from their labor, ideas and creativity. The liberals support the idea that government should control and direct the direction of markets and wealth so that no man may be inticed to go the extra mile to benefit himself and family because the government is the only profiteer.

[cg2112]

Nope...... didnt say that. The past is the past. We have done too much of that in the past. Thats why we are nearing economic collapse with a 16 trillion dollar debt.

This is kind of a non sequitur. A high national debt does not bring us closer to economic collapse. The debt was far higher during WWII, and we came out of that stronger, economically.

I cant change it and niether can you, however in the future, I want to see a smaller less intrusive government that requires less revenue to run. I want to see balanced budgets and lower taxes for corporations and individuals.

What would you cut to require less revenue?

For the record, President Obama has lowered taxes for individuals, and wants to lower the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%. He additionally wanted to renew the payroll tax cut, but Republicans in the Senate blocked him.

The liberals support the idea that government should control and direct the direction of markets and wealth so that no man may be inticed to go the extra mile to benefit himself and family because the government is the only profiteer.

This is false. Liberals, aside from the very far left, believe in the free market, in profit, and in success in business. Liberals certainly believe that people should be rewarded for harder work. I don't know of any liberals who believe that people who work harder and earn more shouldn't be rewarded.

[Rod38um]

This is kind of a non sequitur. A high national debt does not bring us closer to economic collapse. The debt was far higher during WWII, and we came out of that stronger, economically.

In a sense, you are correct. The debt to gdp ratio was slightly higher in the mid 40's for a few months, however the world was rebuilding and we were the highly industrialized. At that time we had no other serious countries to compete with, if you wanted to manufacture, we were the only place that had everything you needed. If you look at the debt to gdp charts, that debt dropped like a rock because the economy was in high gear and we had every available person working and paying taxes. That cant happen again unless we decide to compete and make it easier and cheaper for companies to do business here.

What would you cut to require less revenue?

For the record, President Obama has lowered taxes for individuals, and wants to lower the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%. He additionally wanted to renew the payroll tax cut, but Republicans in the Senate blocked him.

I'm not a candidate, but if I were, I would start by returning many federal departments back over to the states. Education for starters. You can still have federal standards without sending our taxes to the feds, remove half for bureaucracy and then send some back for schools. However I would not make serious cuts till job growth was in high gear. Corporate tax must be much lower. Capital gains should be eliminated. there are trillions being held in offshore accounts that people would love to bring home and invest domestically. We currently tax the heck out it so so people leave it off shore and reinvest it overseas where it creates jobs for foreigners. We need that money invested here. Once we have more jobs, more tax payers, we need less entitlements, only then can they be cut.

Obama keeps saying he cut taxes, mine sure haven't gone down and the big tax increases, 21 new taxes from Obamacare dont take effect until after the election. (yes, thats underhanded)

Republicans in the senate have never had a majority under Obama and are not capable of blocking anything. Additionally they would never block a tax decrease unless it had a ton of liberal BS attached to it.

This is false. Liberals, aside from the very far left, believe in the free market, in profit, and in success in business. Liberals certainly believe that people should be rewarded for harder work. I don't know of any liberals who believe that people who work harder and earn more shouldn't be rewarded.

I'm gonna disagree. I dont consider the average democrat to be liberal. I take every opportunity to discuss issues with democrats. I've found that most times, most democrats agree with the republican platform on the issues but insist on voting democrat because their union told them to or the government agency they work for told them to and they really dont pay attention to politics or economics so they just go along with what they are told. The problem is the elected officials in the democratic party dont share their values. The party has been taken over by liberal, left wing extremists...... "socialists" who are all about big government and punishing productivity, oppressing personal freedoms and the ability to reap what you sow. I blame the media. If the media was honest, then honest voting democrats would have elected representatives that actually agreed with their values

..

[magley64]

Republicans in the senate have never had a majority under Obama and are not capable of blocking anything. Additionally they would never block a tax decrease unless it had a ton of liberal BS attached to it...

Never heard of a filibuster huh?

Also, with a republican majority in the house, they are quite capable of blocking anything.

[Rod38um]

Never heard of a filibuster huh?

Also, with a republican majority in the house, they are quite capable of blocking anything.

True....... but I'm not wading into the weeds about individual actions or bills. One of our problems is that every piece of legislature out there has so much bull crap attached to it that anyone who ever voted for or against any issue has voted for something they didnt want or against something they did. You can point to any politician and call them a hypocrite as evidenced by their record. Till we vote on one issue at a time, everyone has to give up something to get something. I dont like, it needs changed but thats the way it is currently. Policy and direction, however, are debatable without wading into the weeds....... so to speak.