Showing posts with label American labor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American labor. Show all posts
on Thursday, August 22, 2013
 
Youngstown, Ohio 1953
 

 
Youngstown, Ohio 2013
 


Youngstown and America
 
 
 
Between the 1920s and 1960s, Youngstown, Ohio was an important steel producing hub dominated by such companies as Republic Steel, U.S. Steel, and regional giant Youngstown Sheet and Tube.  Youngstown reached its’ zenith in the 1950s, with a prosperous population of 168,000.  The city’s 1951 Comprehensive Plan envisioned a city of the future between 200,000 and 250,000 people, with 1,700 acres zoned for heavy industry.
 
The city’s bright future was upended on September 19 1977, when Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company announced it would close the Campbell Mill. More than 5,000 jobs were lost immediately. Fifty thousand jobs soon followed, as Sheet and Tube’s Brier Hill Works closed two years later, and mill closings at U.S. Steel and Republic Steel followed.
Unemployed workers were left to fend for themselves. City leaders and the federal government, withheld support from an employee initiative to take over and run some of the defunct steel mills proposed by the Ecumenical Coalition of the Mahoning Valley. The coming of the free trade era witnessed manufacturing at major factories throughout America fall into rapid decline as corporations moved jobs overseas.
Since 1950, Youngstown’s population has fallen by two thirds and now stands at 66,000. Most industry is now gone, and many neighborhoods have more homes vacant than inhabited. The city has demolished at least 2,566 blighted structures since January 2006. There are 4,000 to 5,000 vacant houses in Youngstown awaiting demolition.  Many homes, however, fall to arson first.  Arsonists torched 158 houses in 2005 alone.
Youngstown’s issues are, in fact, American issues. A recent New York University-Harvard study provides an explanation.  Corporate profits have decoupled from corporate investment in America.  Today corporate profits account for 12 percent of Gross Domestic Product, while net investment has shrunk to 4 percent.  Investments can reduce companies’ quarterly earnings, to which most CEOs’ income is linked.  The current business paradigm holds that share price is the sole determinant of a corporation’s value and that corporate management’s primary responsibility is to shareholders, rather than balancing the interests of shareholders, employees and consumers.  The outsourcing of American jobs is another manifestation of this paradigm.  Between 2004 and 2009 American based multi-national corporations cut 2.9 million jobs in the United States, while outsourcing 2.4 million jobs to their overseas operations.

General Electric’s chief executive Jeff Immelt (former head of the Obama administration’s “jobs council”, who receives an annual compensation of approximately $15 million) acknowledges that the health and well-being of a company such as GE is now less connected to the well-being of the American economy (worker). Immelt says, “I’m a GE leader first and foremost. At the same time…I work for an American company.”

In 2000 some 54 percent of GE employees worked in the United States. In 2010 about 46 percent of General Electric’s 287,000 employees worked in the United States. GE laid off 21,000 American workers and closed 20 factories between 2007 and 2009.

The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but paid no Federal taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. The year 2010 was the second year in a row that GE paid no taxes. General Electric states that it “pays what it owes under the law.”
Corporate focus on short term profits killed Youngstown, Ohio and is killing America.


 
 
The best reading experience on your Android phone or tablet, iPad, iPhone, Mac, Windows 8 PC or tablet, BlackBerry, or Windows Phone.
 
 
 

on Wednesday, August 24, 2011

“What’s good for General Motors is good for America,” is a mis-quote from 1953 testimony given by Charles E. Wilson at his Congressional confirmation hearings to become Secretary of Defense in the Eisenhower administration. Wilson was defending his reluctance to sell millions of dollars of General Motors stock. When asked if he as Secretary of Defense could make a decision adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered that he could not conceive of such a situation, “because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa.”

The American economy in the Eisenhower 1950s was the envy of the world. Without significant global competition American corporations and workers prospered. America was the workshop of the world, and American exports were king.

No modern American corporate executive could make a statement like Wilson’s without irony. Between 2004 and 2009 American based multi-national corporations have cut 2.9 million jobs in the United States, while outsourcing 2.4 million jobs to their overseas operations.

General Electric’s chief executive Jeff Immelt (the head of the Obama administration’s, “jobs council”) acknowledges that the health and well being of a company such as GE is now less connected to the well being of the American economy. Immelt says, “I’m a GE leader first and foremost. At the same time…I work for an American company.”

In 2000 some 54 percent of GE employees worked in the United States. In 2010 about 46 percent of General Electric’s 287,000 employees worked in the United States. GE laid off 21,000 American workers and closed 20 factories between 2007 and 2009.

The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but paid no Federal taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. The year 2010 was the second year in a row that GE paid no taxes. General Electric states that it “pays what it owes under the law.”


My titles on Amazon

My titles at Barnes & Noble



The best reading experience on your Android phone or tablet, iPad, iPhone, Mac, Windows 8 PC or tablet, BlackBerry, or Windows Phone.



on Sunday, May 17, 2009
Does fear of change cause intolerance?

In the early 20th century, the premise of left wing radical Eugene Debs’ ideology rested upon identification of the labor movement with Anglo-Saxon male Protestants intimately familiar both with the prophetic strain in Christianity and with the traditions of American democracy. Immigrants, especially those of non-English or non-German stock, black and female workers did not fit into this conception. (Salvatore, 104) Debs wrote, “The Dago works for small, and lives far more like a savage or wild beast, than the Chinese.” These sentiments did not inspire universal labor solidarity.

Debs was not unique in his outlook. The American Protective Association identified Catholicism as the country’s most dangerous threat. Members took an oath never to vote for a Catholic, patronize Catholic merchants, or strike with Catholic workmen. (Salvatore, 106)

The objects of intolerance change over time, but the shrill voices of intolerance never seem to change.



My titles on Amazon

My titles at Barnes & Noble



The best reading experience on your Android phone or tablet, iPad, iPhone, Mac, Windows 8 PC or tablet, BlackBerry, or Windows Phone.