AMERICAblog: When is the last time you saw such a CEO?
Helen Rainier
· 1 year ago
I have heard about the "Japanese" business model before with regard to Japanese auto manufacturers who have located manufacturing plants here in the States. As I understand, they pay their employees well, treat them fairly, and like human beings. Because of this approach, there is not a need for organized labor unions to protect employees from management abuse.
On the assumption the above is correct, it is a model that should be adopted by American business.
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
Change GMs Charter to make them Japanese like in behavior. In regard to the auto companies I wish Obama would take this opportunity to introduce some structural reforms. He should force them to alter their corporate charters to cause them to look and behave more like Japanese companies.
Japan provides widescale tenure for employees.
In essence this makes them quasi public jobs projects. But when this occurs it forces the company to plan long term and put workers interest on one of the front burners - it moves executive pay to the back burner. This is because it is easier to fire a CEO than an employee.
We've heard, for decades by the Business Community that Japan's tenure system is not sustainable. That they would be forced to adopt our system. Well look who's not sustainable now.
As it turns out, workers are better proxies for long term shareholders. If you don't believe me ask any GM shareholder if they wouldn't trade it straight up for a share of Toyota.
In the 1990s Toyota was developing hybrid technologies, not because they were greener than GH, but because it needed to safe guard or hedge itself from a market shift in the direction of energy efficiency.
Meanwhile, at the exact same time, Ford announced a policy that it was abandoning cars for Trucks and SUVs. Ford made more in the short run and their execs took home the bonuses. But the market shifted towards the hybrid technologies and Toyota and Honda were there ready and waiting.
In retrospect Ford was taking bigger risk, not Toyota. Toyota couldn't take Ford's risk, they have to provide jobs for their workers 20 years from now. Keep in mind the average American CEO's tenure is around 4 years.
While we are at it, I wish Obama would break the auto companies up.
Chop Ford in two, and GM into 3 or 4.
First of all, we can't have businesses that are too big to fail. If they get that big we have to divide them up, like Standard Oil - so that if one fails their other domestics around to fill their place - and when they get to big, they get divided again.
Japan has five or six independent auto companies at half the market size and one tenth the amount of paved roads. There is no way that a nation that consumes 14 million cars and has millions of miles of paved roads should have only 3 car companies, let alone one or none.
I expect ideology out of Republicans, and pragmatism out of Democrats.
You need multiple companies to have healthy domestic competition. I would do this and inject 3-6 years of some kind of a protection scheme to provide for re-adjustment with tarrifs and quotas to the foreign imports, and a bias towards those companies that had plants in the states already.
It's time for structural reforms. I assume that will include health care. The health care system is so inefficient now that medicare for all would release enough purchasing power to turn the economy around in two or three years.
gimbler
· 1 year ago
I work for Costco because I respect our CEO, Jim Sinegal, who is very much like this. And right here in America. I hope nobody tries to lock Jim up!
Nick_the_Dog
· 1 year ago
Oh! My Gord! Did he just make the majority of our CEOs look greedy and heartless? As a dog, I think I would like this guy!
Older_Wiser
· 1 year ago
Japanese CEOs were making 40 times what a rank and file employee made, not 400 times like their American counterparts, last time I looked. They would also commit suicide rather than laying off thousands of workers, too, and running a company into the ground because of personal greed. Still, I prefer being an American woman and not Japanese...
hachi08
· 1 year ago
Still, I prefer being an American woman and not Japanese...
I hear you on that one! There is so much inequality and gender discrimination in the Japanese corporate culture, let alone society at large. I wish they would adopt a more equal pay structure though, admittedly, even the US has to work on that a bit more.
I'm not an executive, I'm not a manager, or in marketing. Hell, I've been known to clean a bathroom and push some carts - and I can tell you, from even my "lowly" position at Costco that I make a living wage and have every intention of retiring from Costco. It's the Anti-Walmart, anti-greed alternative. Plus our products are better!
vkobaya
· 1 year ago
That's why I patronize Costco and refuse to shop at Walmart.
gimbler
· 1 year ago
Thank you! You help pay my mortgage!
Verchiel
· 1 year ago
That's putting money where your mouth is.
gimbler
· 1 year ago
Okay, maybe I'm a little over-excited by the topic. I truly don't mean to spam the thread, but if you're impressed by the Japanese Airline CEO, then please take a moment to be impressed by our own "home grown" version and go get yourself a Costco membership. Reward the good behavior. Jim Rocks!
The Republican economy has driven states, counties and cities to the brink of bankruptcy. In Washington the state budget is predicted to be up to $5.1 billion in the red. To get the budget in balance the Governor has directed the state Office of Financial Management to find ways to slash the state budget without cutting services. In October Washington State University (WSU)was asked to cut $6 million from its $254 million budget by June 30. In response to the WSU President Elson S. Floyd asked the regents to cut his pay as part of the university's efforts to slash its budget. Floyd requested a $100,000 cut in pay. Intro
The Republican economy has driven states, counties and cities to the brink of bankruptcy. In Washington the state budget is predicted to be up to $5.1 billion in the red. To get the budget in balance the Governor has directed the state Office of Financial Management to find ways to slash the state budget without cutting services. In October Washington State University (WSU)was asked to cut $6 million from its $254 million budget by June 30. In response to the WSU President Elson S. Floyd asked the regents to cut his pay as part of the university's efforts to slash its budget. Floyd requested a $100,000 cut in pay.
Floyd's 14% pay reduction was made because: "These are exceedingly tough times for my students, faculty and staff. We will be asking them to think more creatively and work harder with less as we deal with budgetary restraints. It is incumbent upon me to lead by example."
Imagine that...leading by example. It should be done by more of our "leaders". Leaders in finance, industry, and government need to lead by example. They are rewarded when they "lead" in good times with higher wages, stock options, deferred compensation and other perks. They should be equally willing to lead by example when the companies, agencies and other sectors of our economy are suffering. They should share the pain.
I met Elson Floyd briefly last year shortly after he assumed leadership of Washington State University. I was at a football game and he was working the crowd. He went row by row, introducing himself to the fans and thanking them for supporting the football program and the university. I was impressed by his outreach then and now I am even more impressed with his understanding of the rol of a leader in times of stress.
For more on Floyd's unique example of leadership you can read the article in an area newspaper at: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/...
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
What does Washington State University have in common with most large Japanese companies?
A large number of tenured employees. Please see the comment I left up thread.
For decades the Business establishment said that Japan couldn't keep at this. That they would have to adapt to the American model of hire and fire to survive. As it turns out, there's is the superior model.
Why? When you have tenured employees, you have to think long term. Also, it encourages a sense of community and commitment to the entity for all working there. In most Japanese companies, the CEO came up through the ranks - he's part of the community so his support structure is based in that community. When employees have tenure there's an accountability to them. It's easier to fire the guy at the top then a mass of workers at the bottom. The first place to make a cut is at the top, usually in the form of pay cuts for executives. That's also called leadership - but it's what happens in a tenured environment.
Because of tenure, CEO's have to think long term. Most US CEOs last around 4 years - so their thinking is really short term. You can see why their institution endure, even during huge slumps, while ours stagger from crisis to crisis.
meen
· 1 year ago
@Cosanostradmus- His argument is full of logical fallacies and rife with personal attack ( which in itself is a logical fallacy)- Let me point out some- I did not have the patient to read through his entire rant.
1)---"Extensive studying"? In what language? Not English. Logical fallacy- Ad hominem- attack on person not discussion on the point. 2)Since, as your irrelevant resume states, you have never worked on a factory floor or belonged to a union, you have no idea what workers want nor how unions should achieve that. Logical fallacy- Another adhominem or attack on person- example you are not qualified to speak about the red sea because you have not travelled to Africa or Asia. Plus Cosnostradamus ignores other relevant experience bubble has such as working in GM and Chrysler and knowledge of Japanese labor law. 3)---By which you mean everybody is relatively poor. Such statistics have little bearing on people's real lives in this country. Fallacy-This is just talking in thin air and asserting his belief as a fact-fallacy of appeal to belief. Japans GDP is $33,500 and it is a big lender to "rich" United states-so??
lark83
· 1 year ago
What a contrast to American and Delta airlines' CEOs. My friends who fly for them absolutely despise their management. The first time their airline makes any profit at all the top management takes 90% of it and lines their pockets with it. Unbelievable greed. The airline exists only as an entitity to bleed money out of until its dry.
mauro7inf
· 1 year ago
That guy's not a CEO like American CEO's. That guy clearly has some emotional stake in the company's success; he wasn't just hired to lead the company. What happens to the company is actually so important to him that he won't just move to a job that pays better if his company goes down. In the US, the market forces CEO pay to be competitive so that companies can retain top-of-the-line businesspeople, and it's just not profitable to be a CEO if your pay goes down too much. As far as I can tell, this is fairly simple economics.
If American companies treated the job of CEO as a reward of decades of service in the company, things would be different. But that's the problem; market equilibrium isn't actually a very good position for the company. For this reason, there ought to be some sort of scheme for limits of CEO pay, for protection of the companies themselves who are getting screwed by the CEO's.
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
The difference between U.S. and Japanese companies is tenure. It changes the behavior of corporations.
Tenure forces companies to plan for long term competitiveness to ensure employment. Check out some of my comments up thread
Jenai
· 1 year ago
I think that he is an example of a true leader...something that the CEO's of most of the US's don't know anything about which is very sad.
ObamaLover
· 1 year ago
They have this crazy thing called honor in Japan.
If we had such a thing then the big three automakers would have committed sepaku on the House floor by now for their idiocy.
LeftCoastOracle
· 1 year ago
I must find a reason to fly JAL.
brian
· 1 year ago
Europe has a better model, as well. Most of the CEOs are tied to their employees' pay. That depends from country to country, of course, but it is not so far out of balance as in the US. I think the JAL CEO makes a point about persuing money first. In the US most companies need to persue money to keep the greedy Wall St people from taking away all their money.
cosanostradamus
· 1 year ago
. Actually, the Japanese are fascist union-busting bastards, here and back home. They allow "company unions" only, controlled by the company. Auto-workers in Japan can't even afford homes; many younger workers live in company dorms. There is absolutely nothing admirable about the Japanese way of doing business, especially the auto business.
But our car corps are still worse. We should require seppuku of Detroit CEO's with any bail-out.
And here's another corporate shill on Obama's team of retreads. Change, my perfect white ass! .
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
Well you left out a couple of key points.
(- Please note, I did extensive studying of Japan's Corporate law while in law school. Before that I've also worked at GM and Caterpillar designing materials management systems for a decade and a half. I also have a degree in economic geography)
#1 - Most Japanese firms have wide scale tenure for Employees. When this happens it changes the behavior of firms and it achieves for employees most of the things they want to achieve by way of our Unionization.
#2 - To drive home the point - Japan, has the broadest distribution of wealth in the first world.
Alone among 'major' economies (meaning in excess of one trillion dollars GNP) Japan's distribution of wealth is equal to that we normally associate with only Scandinavian countries - which of course are all smaller countries.
What happens when companies have tenure is that it alters bargaining power in favor of the employees.
It also forces the company to have to put employee interest before everyone else. In both Japan and the United States, the ostensible corporate governance rule is "shareholder primacy" - meaning shareholders come first. But in the U.S. the way that rule works is "executive primacy". In Japan, because of Tenure, it means Employee primacy.
In Japan, because of the Tenure system, the interest of the Employees come first.
This explains the difference in corporate behavior between Toyota and say Ford or GM.
Toyota has to plan for long term competitiveness because it has to provide jobs 20 year in the future for it's employees. So it was researching hybrids in the 1990s as a hedge that it might, might become a market driver in the future. Contrast that in the US. The average CEO last only 4 years on the job. He has short term horizon. At the same time Toyota was blowing money on hybrids Ford was announcing it was focusing all development on Trucks.
For decades the Business establishment said that Japan would have to move to a 'hire and fire' model that the U.S. used. Well it turns out to be wrong.
In regard to owning homes, there's a reason for that. Japan is an island country the size of Montana with 127 million people living on it - more over 70% of the country is too mountainess to live on. The cost of owning enough land in such an environment to have a home with a back and front yard is rediculous. Also, the dream of owning your own home is largely an Anglo-saxon cultural phenomina. Not that other countries don't have that - but for many, including Germany and Japan, the whole 'own your own home' is not part of their culture. In many cases they do own their own condo. Living is much more vertical and that's expensive. Also, Japanese tend to have much less debt than Americans.
Japan does have unions, company unions, as you said. In the U.S. that doesn't work because the corporation still has bargaining power advantage. So in the U.S. you have industry wide unions. But that model has created managment-union oligopoly that is inherently uncompetitive.
The reason company unions do work in Japan is because of the Tenure system. The combination of tenure (which is recognized by the courts) and employee unions give Japanese workers more bargaining power than U.S. workers have even with Industry Unions - because in Japan companies put employee interest first, and even with a Union, GM still doesn't value it's employees as high as its executives and stockholders.
The reason we don't hear and know more about the Japanese system and why it works so well is that neither American Business leadership nor American Union Leadership wants Americans to know more about it.
Executives don't want to lose their primacy. The UAW's leadership commands control of labor for the entire industry. They don't want to be chopped down to either being a small company sized union, or being a confederated center (where as today it is a federated center).
Remember: the key issue is bargaining power. Before 1860, even with three million trapped in slavery, the U.S. had the broadest distribution of wealth in the history of the world. In 1861 we had a war to free those slaves. Yet, 25 years after those slaves were free the U.S. had the most concentrated wealth in the world.
Why? Because the invention of the limited liability (modern) corporation. Prior to 1860 - most people bargained as individuals for their wage. As a hedge in favor of labor, there was always the call of cheap land on the frontier. After the Civil war individuals had to bargain with corporations - which is a collective and collectives have bargaining power over individuals. This created the gilded age of concentrated wealth and widespread squalor. The problem wasn't solved until the recognition of the validity of industry wide unions in the 1930s. But that model created oligopolies and American industry lost its competitiveness in many industries: steel and autos were first and foremost.
The Japanese model works. The comnpany becomes a community where everyone has the same stake in the success of the firm. Executives and Employees are in the same boat, they are no longer enemies but allies. In America Executives at Ford have more in community with Executives at GM and the same is true for workers. In Japan, it's the reverse. Neither executives, nor workers, are inclined to commune with those from competing companies.
(The Japanese model is very community oriented - in fact it's modeled upon the village-community formed during the Shogunate years - where if the community didn't manage it's affairs properly, the local lord would come with his samuria to rape, pillage and burn the village down - so people of the village learned to get alone real well, whether they were rich or poor they all had power to bring the house down. To understand just how strong this ethic was - for nearly 300 years, Christianity was outlawed. The penalty was death. For 300 years entire villages remained Christain yet no one outside those Villages ever knew).
If we are going to save our country and its manufacturing base, we are going to have to adapt the positive aspects of the Japanese model - they are more sustainable than our own. While we are doing it we can improve on their model - make it better and make us more competitive.
There are problems with Japanese society - but the industrial model is state of the art. They have the most competitive companies, that are good at survining prolonged down turns, and provide great wages and distribution of wealth. If we had their system, we would do it better than they do. Why? Because we are less hierarchical and more egalitarian than they are. We have more resources (they have almost none), better higher education system, and yes, more land, so cheaper resource cost.
Please don't go off so cochsure of yourself in critizing the Japanese system. We obviously won't import there system but we can and probably will do a lot worse when we don't. Right now we are looking at losing our entire industrial base.
Also see please some of my comments on this up thread.
cosanostradamus
· 1 year ago
. Well you left out a couple of key points. (- Please note, I did extensive studying of Japan's Corporate law while in law school. Before that I've also worked at GM and Caterpillar designing materials management systems for a decade and a half. I also have a degree in economic geography)
---"Extensive studying"? In what language? Not English.
#1 - Most Japanese firms have wide scale tenure for Employees. When this happens it changes the behavior of firms and it achieves for employees most of the things they want to achieve by way of our Unionization.
---Since, as your irrelevant resume states, you have never worked on a factory floor or belonged to a union, you have no idea what workers want nor how unions should achieve that.
#2 - To drive home the point - Japan, has the broadest distribution of wealth in the first world.
---By which you mean everybody is relatively poor. Such statistics have little bearing on people's real lives in this country.
Alone among 'major' economies (meaning in excess of one trillion dollars GNP) Japan's distribution of wealth is equal to that we normally associate with only Scandinavian countries - which of course are all smaller countries. What happens when companies have tenure is that it alters bargaining power in favor of the employees.
---Without independent unions, the workers have no bargaining power at all.
It also forces the company to have to put employee interest before everyone else. In both Japan and the United States, the ostensible corporate governance rule is "shareholder primacy" - meaning shareholders come first. But in the U.S. the way that rule works is "executive primacy". In Japan, because of Tenure, it means Employee primacy. In Japan, because of the Tenure system, the interest of the Employees come first.
---Arrant nonsense. The interests of the company's owners and managers always come first, everywhere. Japan is no "workers' paradise."
This explains the difference in corporate behavior between Toyota and say Ford or GM. Toyota has to plan for long term competitiveness because it has to provide jobs 20 year in the future for it's employees. So it was researching hybrids in the 1990s as a hedge that it might, might become a market driver in the future. Contrast that in the US. The average CEO last only 4 years on the job. He has short term horizon. At the same time Toyota was blowing money on hybrids Ford was announcing it was focusing all development on Trucks. For decades the Business establishment said that Japan would have to move to a 'hire and fire' model that the U.S. used. Well it turns out to be wrong.
---Yeah, because, due to a demographically-driven labor shortage, they don't have enough workers. They have the oldest population in the world. A salient fact you neglect to mention. ---And Japan can afford to take a long view because they are protected by their government, as U.S. industry is not. Maybe we should shut our markets to them, as they have repeatedly shut theirs to us, hm?
In regard to owning homes, there's a reason for that. Japan is an island country the size of Montana with 127 million people living on it - more over 70% of the country is too mountainess to live on. The cost of owning enough land in such an environment to have a home with a back and front yard is rediculous. Also, the dream of owning your own home is largely an Anglo-saxon cultural phenomina. Not that other countries don't have that - but for many, including Germany and Japan, the whole 'own your own home' is not part of their culture. In many cases they do own their own condo. Living is much more vertical and that's expensive. Also, Japanese tend to have much less debt than Americans.
----Industrialization is largely a Western, not just "Anglo-Saxon" phenomenon, like home ownership, which seems to have caught on in all industrialized societies. Japanese corporations just don't pay enough for most people to own even a large apartment, let alone a house of any size.
Japan does have unions, company unions, as you said. In the U.S. that doesn't work because the corporation still has bargaining power advantage. So in the U.S. you have industry wide unions. But that model has created managment-union oligopoly that is inherently uncompetitive.
---More nonsense. Unions are hardly partners in the management or profits of industry in this country. Japanese company unions are not real unions; they have no bargaining power.
The reason company unions do work in Japan is because of the Tenure system. The combination of tenure (which is recognized by the courts) and employee unions give Japanese workers more bargaining power than U.S. workers have even with Industry Unions - because in Japan companies put employee interest first, and even with a Union, GM still doesn't value it's employees as high as its executives and stockholders. The reason we don't hear and know more about the Japanese system and why it works so well is that neither American Business leadership nor American Union Leadership wants Americans to know more about it.
---Yeah, because we outlawed slavery here. Nobody in America wants to be stuck in one dead-end job for life, virtual property of the company.
Executives don't want to lose their primacy. The UAW's leadership commands control of labor for the entire industry. They don't want to be chopped down to either being a small company sized union, or being a confederated center (where as today it is a federated center). Remember: the key issue is bargaining power. Before 1860, even with three million trapped in slavery, the U.S. had the broadest distribution of wealth in the history of the world. In 1861 we had a war to free those slaves. Yet, 25 years after those slaves were free the U.S. had the most concentrated wealth in the world.
---Really? The BLS was gathering statistics in the mid-Nineteenth Century? BWA-HAW-HAH-HA!!! ---There are a number of unions in the auto industry in America, not just the UAW. But their "primacy" has been undermined by anti-union Japanese factories in the traditionally racist & anti-worker South.
Why? Because the invention of the limited liability (modern) corporation. Prior to 1860 - most people bargained as individuals for their wage. As a hedge in favor of labor, there was always the call of cheap land on the frontier. After the Civil war individuals had to bargain with corporations - which is a collective and collectives have bargaining power over individuals. This created the gilded age of concentrated wealth and widespread squalor. The problem wasn't solved until the recognition of the validity of industry wide unions in the 1930s. But that model created oligopolies and American industry lost its competitiveness in many industries: steel and autos were first and foremost.
---American industry was at its' height in the period leading up to and following the Depression. It was also a period of labor struggles. It wasn't until the unfair and often illegal competition from Japan that our industries began to shrink. Read some actual history some time. Your absurd anti-Union rhetoric keeps getting in the way of the facts.
The Japanese model works. The comnpany becomes a community where everyone has the same stake in the success of the firm. Executives and Employees are in the same boat, they are no longer enemies but allies. In America Executives at Ford have more in community with Executives at GM and the same is true for workers. In Japan, it's the reverse. Neither executives, nor workers, are inclined to commune with those from competing companies.
---"More in community"? Again, Try writing in English when you're presuming to school us on our own history. ---And, yeah. We'll see how well the Japanese model works without American markets to fuel it. One advantage of the meltdown: Imports will plummet.
(The Japanese model is very community oriented - in fact it's modeled upon the village-community formed during the Shogunate years - where if the community didn't manage it's affairs properly, the local lord would come with his samuria to rape, pillage and burn the village down - so people of the village learned to get alone real well, whether they were rich or poor they all had power to bring the house down. To understand just how strong this ethic was - for nearly 300 years, Christianity was outlawed. The penalty was death. For 300 years entire villages remained Christain yet no one outside those Villages ever knew).
---Oh, I get it: We need a "community oriented" society based on fear of rape, murder, looting and arson. Now THAT'S a civilization! Great model! Some community.
If we are going to save our country and its manufacturing base, we are going to have to adapt the positive aspects of the Japanese model - they are more sustainable than our own. While we are doing it we can improve on their model - make it better and make us more competitive. There are problems with Japanese society - but the industrial model is state of the art. They have the most competitive companies, that are good at survining prolonged down turns, and provide great wages and distribution of wealth. If we had their system, we would do it better than they do. Why? Because we are less hierarchical and more egalitarian than they are. We have more resources (they have almost none), better higher education system, and yes, more land, so cheaper resource cost.
----Japanese are more egalitarian than we are? Tell that to their "God-Emperor." Or just take a look at their verb tables some time. They are one of the most hierarchical societies in the world. Ask any Japanese-Korean, or Okinawan. They are also one of the most racist societies in the world. The resulting anti-immigrant sentiments and policies are largely responsible for their ongoing labor shortage, despite which, workers still have little job-mobility or bargaining leverage. ---The Japanese system is based on extended zaibatsu and keiretsu, interlocking companies, which you don't bother to mention: This leads to the sort of dangerous, fascist combination of government, the military, industry, finance and labor which led the Japanese into their disastrous and genocidal wars. It was not until we soundly defeated them and took over their country that their society began to function as a modern one. The Japanese system is nothing more than a bad copy of the U.S. system, with those fascistic elements still surviving underneath: The very elements you would foist upon us.
Please don't go off so cochsure of yourself in critizing the Japanese system. We obviously won't import there system but we can and probably will do a lot worse when we don't. Right now we are looking at losing our entire industrial base.
---If we were to lose our industrial base, it wouldn't be because of our greater freedoms. It would be precisely because of our blind encouragement of "free" trade over fair trade, and the deliberate targeting of our basic industries by the Japanese. They are no model for us: They are our worst enemy. We could wipe them out economically in a few years by simply turning their own unfair trade policies right back on them.
Also see please some of my comments on this up thread.
A lot of hooey. .
Reese Boisse
· 1 year ago
See, Bubbles explained his points. You're just saying that they're wrong. Most of your response is ad hominem and the times that you do explain, you do so with just enough vitriol to lose sight of your point. His views on the juxtaposition of the unions of America and Japan makes more sense than saying simply "Without independent unions, the workers have no bargaining power at all." Perhaps if the balance of interests was skewed less in favor of those wanting to skewer the worker for larger gains, we wouldn't need to be so militantly pro-union.
Good effort, but maybe try not to be a dick and your point will come across a bit better.
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
Thanks.
At one point he says Japanese workers have no bargaining power, and then he says that Japan has a labor shortage, which is to say, they have bargaining power.
I would rather he tell me how things could be changed for the better - and why those changes would be better. Instead he just seems to be saying - keep things the same and close the boarders.
cosanostradamus
· 1 year ago
. If you want to reply to what I've said, Bubbles, reply to me. Common courtesy.
You obviously missed my point. IN SPITE OF the fact that there is a labor shortage, Japanese workers have NO bargaining power because they do not have a bargaining agent, or union. Company unions represent the company, not the workers. Get it? And that is why they can't afford to own their own homes, or even a car, even if they make cars themselves. It's a closed system, and the workers are shut out of it, as far as control of it goes.
Things here could be improved by holding other countries to a standard of fair trade. Unless workers rights, environmental protections, consumer protection, and product safety standards current in the U.S. are applied in the countries with which we trade, we will always be at a competitive disadvantage. And we will always be subsidizing bad behavior by our trading partners.
Closing our borders selectively should always be an option, as it is in every other country in the world. If a country does not meet our standards, and cannot or will not trade fairly, then they should not be allowed access to our markets.
The standard of living in this country, for which unions are largely responsible, has been steadily eroded by so-called "free" trade. It's no accident that our standard of living has diminished in direct proportion to the shrinkage of our union work-force. Thousands and thousands of good jobs have been lost to foreign competitors who violate every civilized standard, from child labor to product safety. Whole industries have been wiped out in a single generation. We can only stop this by applying the same high standards for which our parents and grandparents fought to every new trade deal. They all want access to our markets. Why should they get it so cheaply, and to our direct detriment? .
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
Actually you missed my point.
In Japan the company operates under a rule of employee primacy. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF BARGAINING POWER - CEOs IN THE U.S. GET 400 TIMES A WORKERS SALARY BECAUSE IN THE U.S. EXECUTIVES HAVE PRIMACY.
Check the facts - the median wage as a percentage of GNP is higher in Japan than it is the United States.
Here is how it works: In BOTH Japan and the U.S. corporate law OSTENSIBLY says that boards of directors must manage the company under the rule of SHAREHOLDER primacy. That means, in theory the shareholders interest is suppose to come first.
iIn NEITHER Japan or the U.S. does 'shareholder primacy' hold. In the U.S. executives control the board. So you have EXECUTIVE PRIMACY.
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
I didn't finish that.
In the U.S. you have Executive primacy. Executives have the bargaining power. And they screw the corporation, the shareholders, the workers, everything so that they can gain a wage that is 400 to 1000 times a normal workers salary. That's just bargaining power by a different means.
In Japan, because of Tenure, the Executive doesn't have primacy. Its easier to fire one executive than it is to fire ten workers. Furthermore, with tenure, a worker can stand up to the corporation if they think it's not being run right and now worried about getting fired. Because their is a union, he can get lots of people to stand up with him if the company is not being run well. And because they can fire the executive easier than the ten workers, let along many workers, the board fires the executive. That's how it works.
Furthermore, it works that way here where there is Tenure too. I saw it at my own law school. There was a minor scandal about not allowing the Military to recruit on campus because of open discrimination of Gays, write after 9/11. It was in the papers every day. And every day the dean of the law school said he was consulting with the faculty to see how to resolve the situation. You see, he wasn't worried about the 'stock holders' of the law school - the University, its chancelor or it's board of regents. He wasn't worried about the administrative employees. He was solely worried about the tenured faculty and worked with them to resolve the problem.
And by the way - the unions are not controlled by the company. They are controlled by the employees. Because of employee primacy, the interest are closely aligned. If an executive does something wrong - the union will do a one hour strike. That sends a message that the executive is courting a vote of no confidence with the employees, and he'll be removed if he doesn't shape up.
Look at the stats. Japanese make good pay and have job security there companies are more competitive. And If we do this we would do it better.
If you gave wallmart employees tenure and a union the size of the company - they would have more bargaining power than they have now, and would get vacations and maybe some other benefits. If they had universal health insurance here, there's also less to bargain for - just pay, working conditions and time off. In fact in tenured companies workers get long sabbaticals - is very very common.
There's more than one way to arrive at bargaining power. The Japanese invented a new way. Every American said it was worse, that it couldn't last, that the companies wouldn't be competitive. They have been saying it for 40 or 50 years. Last time I look the book value of GM was $16 billion and the book value of Toyota was $160 billion.
I'm not sure what you arguing about. If tenure and company union arrives at bargaining power for Employees, then it's fair. In which case, trade with Japan is fair. We just opted for a clumsier bargaining arrangement that's all.
You know, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
We are applying a sledge hammer where a tweezers might be a better tool. We have to look closely at those tools, and not criticise them simply because we don't know them, understand them etc... If there's is the better way, then we have a duty to investigate thoroughly and with an open mind.
When I designed systems, I mapped the current system out. Then I mapped the "to be" system out, implementing every possible short cut and improvement I could. I checked far and wide for ideas for improvement. If I found one being done in bora bora, I looked to see if I could put it in place in Peoria.
The past is behind us. If there's a better way, lets go after it with gusto.
cosanostradamus
· 1 year ago
. Thanks for proving an example of an ad hominem attack, Reese Boisse, which is all you have just done; although it's not relevant to my post or my arguments. I attacked his arguments and his claim to expertise, not him personally. That's an "ad hominem" argument: A personal attack, not an attack on an argument or someone's expertise.
They do not have unions in Japan. A company union is not a union. Period. And workers in America have no bargaining power except through unions. Get it?
As to being "a dick," in your adolescent parlance, I defer to your experience, and your expertise at that. .
Reese Boisse
· 1 year ago
No problem, cosanostradamus, I'm glad I provided you with some service. In fact, I know what an ad hominem attack is, and meant to make one. Using insulting language in response to petty wording issues that are irrelevant to the point's he's making counts as well, I'm pretty sure. I'll even concede that it wasn't "mostly" ad hominem; my vision just got a little blurry from all the sarcasm and abrasion. And you're correct to trust me on that last bit, I am an experienced dick, and a master of adolescent parlance: poo poo, pee pee, man-danglo. I bet you've never even heard that last one. So yes, this is an area of expertise, and you can feel free to consult me in the future if you're not sure you're being a dick or not.
Either way, you still haven't explained why these Japanese company unions do not serve the worker as well as "real" unions other than to say that a company union can never represent the workers' interests. I've never worked an assembly floor in the US or Japan, plus thus far I've done better on my own than I would by joining an applicable union, so sure, I'm just full of shit, but if all these people who say that the philosophical difference in the way businesses are run in the US vs. Japan is that for the latter, the worker is actually valued as s/he should be, as the core of the business, and that they are supposedly treated as such, why can the company absolutely not represent their interests? I'm not trying to be argumentative, if I'm coming off that way- this is just something I know relatively little about, and I don't know the answers to these questions.
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
If the company union doesn't work - then how do you explain Japan's broad distribution of wealth?
You can't just "Period, end of discussion". That's not arguing, that's a refusal to argue.
I've provided data.
I agree - companies, even Japanese companies, don't give money away. It does take bargaining power. I agree that a company union alone does not proved sufficient bargaining power to affect workers fairly. However I dispute that it takes an industry wide union to gain fair bargaining. In my argument I suggest that wide scale tenure changes bargaining power sufficiently to make a union company sufficient. Alone a company sized union is insufficient - history has shown that -, but include tenure, and suddenly a company sized union is sufficient. And the proof is in the distribution of wealth. Japan has the broadest distribution of wealth in the first world.
No nation does better than that.
In the aggregate, all you can ask of your bargaining power arrangements is that they allow for all society to advance when productivity advances, not just the rich, not just the middle class and workers and not just the poor. Ideally you want every body advancing.
Bargaining power is everything. I agree. Well almost everything, the size of the pile of money you are bargaining over is the other factor. Over all Japan has less resources than we do.
You introduce the idea that there is only one way to give bargaining power to workers. I say you are wrong. I explain another method and I provide the data.
I've stated my argument, I've provided data, I've shown examples of how the mechanism works.
I'm not disagreeing that unions provide workers with bargaining power. And they work really well for trades and I even think they work fine in service areas where there's no worry about losing out to overseas competition. But publicly traded industrial manufacturing corporations that compete on an international market are losing and have been losing to another model.
It's not unfair trade if Japan's workers have bargaining power, and the distribution of wealth stats say that Japanese workers enjoy more bargaining power than any society in the world today. That's indisputable. Its a fact in those tables.
The question then comes down to which model is more competitive. How do Japanese products stand up to American products in third country markets? If you go to some place, like Fiji or Greece or Chile or Kenya - who wins in those markets? The products of Detroit or Nagoya?
Explain your argument, then present you facts. However, I suggest that I already know the basic facts. It's what I started from. My father worked in the maintenance department for a large unionized manufacturing company. I know unions give bargaining power to employees, but the existing system is over kill that is killing our industrial base.
If all you say is 'company unions aren't unions, period' then you are conceding the argument.
I realize what I'm explaining is a new concept for many people. It's been kept hidden: the Japanese don't want us to know about it, they don't want us to become competitive; the Executives and CEOs don't want us to know about it because they don't want to lose Primacy and their big wages; and the big wigs at the Unions don't want us to know about it because they would loose immense power - in fact many would become relics. All those entrenched interest want to say what you are saying. They don't have facts, so they just shout real loud: "IT WON'T WORK PERIOD". Meanwhile the people of east Asia are eating our lunch and we can't figure out how to become more competitive.
It's an entirely different, and new system. The people who benefit are the workers, the shareholders (because workers are a better proxy than executives to there interest - just compare the Toyota shareholder to the GM shareholer), and society benefits from greater competitiveness and more economic stability.
If you are an entrenched interest to the old system, I'm sorry. You had a good run. But it's not working and if we want to salvage our industry we need to look at this other way.
Imagine, if America had Japan's distribution of wealth most American's would make 50% more than they do now, and possibly 100% more. Think of that. We could go back to the time where one parent could stay at home, if they so choose to.
I rest my case.
hachi08
· 1 year ago
I'm with Reese. You're just negating everything Bubbles said without providing much to back it up.
Having studied a bit of Japan's political economics (in English and Japanese), I understand that the Japanese system is not nearly at magical as Bubbles makes it out to be but rather than offering data to back your statements, your method of rebuttal (the bold text, caps lock, and exclamation points in particular) comes across as angry and antagonistic.
---American industry was at its' height in the period leading up to and following the Depression. It was also a period of labor struggles. It wasn't until the unfair and often illegal competition from Japan that our industries began to shrink. Read some actual history some time. Your absurd anti-Union rhetoric keeps getting in the way of the facts.
Unfair and often illegal? Why do you think such "illegal" competition was allowed? Following WWII, American industries clamored to keep the Japanese industrial machine from rising again but with the advent of the Cold War, the rejuvenation of Japan as an economic power became a top priority for American influence in Asia. During Japan's pre-WWII industrialization it had used E. Asia as a dumping ground for its numerous exports, but this couldn't continue once Japan was defeated, so the US in a strategic move became Japan's export market. Unfair? Perhaps. Illegal? Sanctioned by the US government.
While I think that you make several valid points, you come across as the cynical gaijin, bitter because his illusions of Japan have been shattered. Not saying that this is the case, but you remind me of several friends who had all these preconceived notions about Japan but became angry when they got there and discovered it wasn't the magical, happy place they'd made it out to be. Yes, there is racism towards non-Japanese, and Japan's develomental state capitalist does have strong fascist elements from it's zaibatsu and keiretsu roots. But in no way does this make Japan "our worst enemy," and we can stand to take a few elements from their model, just as they can stand to take a few things from the US.
cosanostradamus
· 1 year ago
. I used bold type so that you could tell my remarks apart from his. Sorry, didn't realize you were so typographically sensitive.
Try to focus on the actual argument. I was talking about the practice of "dumping" or selling below cost in the US by Japan, targeting certain key industries such as steel, ball bearings, transistors and printed circuits. Anyone pretending to know anything about trade in that period between Japan and the US would have known what I was talking about. This isn't the place for lengthy dissertations or extensive footnotes. If you have specific questions, ask them.
Trade is, in a sense, warfare. But even in war there are rules. At the same time, Japan has erected an endless series of barriers to US exports, most of which were later found to be in violation of existing trade agreements with the US. That has to stop.
Gaijin is a racist term, as it is used today, and I object to it. Don't impute motives or emotions to me: You don't know me at all. I never had any illusions about Japan. I see it for what it is: A competitor willing to use any means to win in the war known as "free trade."
We need to wise up. We can no longer afford the luxury of carrying other countries in these wars. Either they meet our standards and play by the rules, or they lose access to our markets.
Japan is not our very worst enemy, but in trade terms, they are certainly not on our side. As to copying their system, it was mostly copied from us in the first place. American experts introduced the concepts of co-operative management and worker-input to the production design process.
Detroit decide to stick with their adversarial mode, and they paid for it. They've done better since they allowed more cooperation, but they still seem to think they can control US markets regardless of actual needs and wants among US consumers, or such realities as the price of gas.
Unions are not to blame for this. If they had a large ownership stake, and a major role in managing the companies, I think we'd all be better off. But the oppressively anti-labor methods of the Japanese have no place here. That's not "bitterness." That's just a fact.
Congress should find a way to have the auto-workers take ownership of the companies. I think that's the only way out of these stupid cycles of boom & bust. But I don't think the DINOs will go for it. .
hachi08
· 1 year ago
1)Don't impute motives or emotions to me: You don't know me at all.
I never claimed to know you. In fact, I clearly stated, "Not saying this is the case, but you remind me..." As for the racism of the term gaijin, that's a linguistic discussion completely tangential to our current one, so I'm not going to go there at this time.
I'm also going to disregard the "typographically sensitive" comment because I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat argument with you; I'm looking for actual discussion. My stance remains the same, however: your overall delivery--the boldface type and other features that denote yelling--combined with your, as Reese put it, vitriolic discussion style makes you sound less credible and negates your valid points. I'm going to continue to attempt discussion with you for the time being because I am interested in what you have to say and how much information you have to back it.
As I said above, though I disagree with your approach and feel that your views are too far skewed in one direction, I also don't agree with Bubbles across the board. Based on my studies, I believe that there are things wrong with the Japanese economic system and that it's a system teetering on crumbling foundations. I also agree that Japan is "A competitor willing to use any means to win in the war known as 'free trade,'" but what country isn't? You may approach this from a realist worldview, but I consider myself more of a constructivist--the system is what we make of it. Anyway, there's no need to alienate allies with your militancy, or attack me with your... ascerbic wit because by sinking to personal attacks, we lose the chance to discuss, to learn a new point of view, and to reformulate our own beliefs.
2)Trade is, in a sense, warfare. But even in war there are rules. At the same time, Japan has erected an endless series of barriers to US exports, most of which were later found to be in violation of existing trade agreements with the US. That has to stop.
I think both sides here are equally guilty of violating the rules of trade warfare. In the US's case, I'll cite the East Asian currency crisis, which financially destabilized the entire region and caused civil unrest in certain nations that continues to the present day. How was that not both illegal and unfair?
3) As for your other points, I'm not sure whether they were directed at me or not as I never claimed to be anti-union. I will "try to focus on the actual argument," as you say, however, I also will do my part to negate incorrect or unfounded claims. For instance, to respectfully disagree with you, everybody in Japan is not relatively poor. Yes, there is a lower home ownership rate than the U.S. but, according to Housing Finance International, as of 2000 approx. 60% of Japanese own their homes, which in no way means relatively poor--particularly when you see the homeownership rates for America (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annu...) which are 65-75% percent but drop below 60% when you look at non-White Americans.
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
Great - thanks for introducing reason.
Now I want to learn from you. What parts of the Japanese system do you find brital. What parts do you think we could stand to import?
My position is, I would like to see American companies try a system based upon widespread tenure, and perhaps board representation. This strengthens workers hands, so to compensate I would reduce the union to be company sized, but not company controlled. I believe this creates a better bargaining situation for workers and the company, and creates a more communitarian work environment which makes the company more competitive. I believe that long term shareholders benefit from employee primacy because both have interest in long term growth of the company.
I've observed where my university demonstrated faculty primacy during a controversy there. So I think that system works.
Since the auto industry is in a crisis - I think this system should be tried there first and that this would be a good time to try it. But I think the companies should be given protection for a period of time to make adjustments.
I also don't think there's much of a chance of any of this happening.
So yes, I'd be very interested in yours, and anybody's thoughts on these things, but I would like to here them in a constructive dialogue kind of way.
In general I believe in Unions. What I want is a distribution of wealth that resembles Japan's and companies that are healthy and competitive. A country as productive as this one is, we would all be much much better off. Unions are one way of achieving that in many areas of the economy - but certainly not all, and it's not working in the auto sector very well and hasn't really ever.
I think in the current environment, the argument for tenure is much stronger than the arguments for unions. All publicly held companies suffer from fractured ownership problem. That gives executives primacy. Since executives average only about 4 years tenure, their policies are short sited. The shareholders lose out. I think workers are a better proxy for shareholder's interest - long term, and society's interest as well. On that basis, I think the tenure arguement is extremely strong.
At that point, once you have tenure, you only need a local union to give voice to employee interest and you are there.
These days my 80 year old father works for Walmart as a greeter. I'm greatful that they are willing to employ him when no one else will. My father thrives on work so I believe it helps keep him alive and ticking. But I imagine if Walmart gave 80% of their workers tenure, how that might change things for them. And throw in a union that they controlled.
If we were like most countries, and had universal health care, there's not much left to bargain for: just wages, time off and working conditions. I guess that would make them costco employees.
zed
· 1 year ago
"If we had their system, we would do it better than they do. Why? Because we [Americans] are less hierarchical and more egalitarian than they [Japanese] are."
"----Japanese are more egalitarian than we are? Tell that to their "God-Emperor." Or just take a look at their verb tables some time. They are one of the most hierarchical societies in the world."
Emphasis mine, to help with your reading comprehension.
cosanostradamus
· 1 year ago
. Yeah. Got that one backwards. Thanks. Nice catch. 4am in Hawaii. .
no u
· 1 year ago
If i thought you'd bother to consider something besides your narrow way of thinking about the entire world, then I would explain to you why you're wrong. When people from other countries say that Americans are stupid, and I say that they're not, it is people like you who make me squirm knowing that there are people like you who stand out in their arrogance, loudness, and idiocy. If I had the time and money, maybe I'd be able to show you a little bit about life is in places and with people that aren't like you. Neither are the case, so if there is any hope on this site of you suddenly not becoming an idiot, it's the chance that everybody rips into you for being a dumbass. Also, get an idiom dictionary, because you are using a lot of phrases incorrectly. I regret the day somebody showed you a computer, or the day you spoke your first word.
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
Well you left out a couple of key points. (- Please note, I did extensive studying of Japan's Corporate law while in law school. Before that I've also worked at GM and Caterpillar designing materials management systems for a decade and a half. I also have a degree in economic geography)
---"Extensive studying"? In what language? Not English.
My Law Professor spoke fluent Japanese. I read through hundreds of papers on Japanese Corp. Law, usually written by either Japanese or by westerners who spoke Japanese. These were real research papers I read with real data, by real experts.
#1 - Most Japanese firms have wide scale tenure for Employees. When this happens it changes the behavior of firms and it achieves for employees most of the things they want to achieve by way of our Unionization.
---Since, as your irrelevant resume states, you have never worked on a factory floor, or belonged to a union, you have no idea what workers want, or how unions should achieve that.
Of course I've worked on a factory floor. I did belong to a union when I worked in a grocery store, also the people I worked with on the factory floor belonged. Also members of my family and close friends also work for a union. What are you trying to imply - that you union workers have some kind of dark skull and bones type of secret that they don't want the public to know? If what union workers want is a secret then it's really hard for them to get it isn't it? You're not winning me over to your arguement with that.
#2 - To drive home the point - Japan, has the broadest distribution of wealth in the first world.
---By which you mean everybody is relatively poor. Such statistics have little bearing on people's real lives in this country.
By which I mean everybody is relatively rich. Obviously you have never been to Japan. You'd think you were in disney land it so clean and safe. Things do cost more there, as they do just about everywhere - in addition to high rents, they are also remote.
Alone among 'major' economies (meaning in excess of one trillion dollars GNP) Japan's distribution of wealth is equal to that we normally associate with only Scandinavian countries - which of course are all smaller countries. What happens when companies have tenure is that it alters bargaining power in favor of the employees.
---Without independent unions, the workers have no bargaining power at all.
How can you say that? You think that broad distribution of wealth comes from the goodness of the corporations heart?
It also forces the company to have to put employee interest before everyone else. In both Japan and the United States, the ostensible corporate governance rule is "shareholder primacy" - meaning shareholders come first. But in the U.S. the way that rule works is "executive primacy". In Japan, because of Tenure, it means Employee primacy. In Japan, because of the Tenure system, the interest of the Employees come first.
---Arrant nonsense. The interests of the company's owners and managers always come first, everywhere. Japan is no "workers' paradise."
You are starting to remind me of the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" no-nothings. The problem of corporations is ownership is fractured so there is a void. So that means, in the US, executives come first - they fill the void. In Japan Employees interest comes first. Is it a workers paradise? No, they still have to work and they work in very competitive companies so that means there's lots of pressure. Japan is not a perfect society. I'm saying for failing industries adopt some of the ideas that work well over there. There's up to 8 independent car companies there for half the market. If Subaru fails, then they fail, and their is no government bailout because they are not TOO big to fail.
I've seen J.P. Morgan investment banker on TV complaining about this very thing. You see, the Business class says Japan is Socialist. Union apparatchiniks say it's fascist. Obviously either each party doesn't understand how it works, or they have an entrenched interest in the status quo. I know one thing, offer anyone, that has a decent job, tenure, and none of them will say no. They;ll all take it. Tenure says you can quit if you want, but you can't be fired.
Business is just like sports: if you don't adapt to a superior competitive strategy you'll soon be out of a job. If both the workers and the executives in the auto industry have your no-nothing attitude, they'll soon have no jobs. Japanese people aren't complaining. They hope Americans don't adapt - because then they'll take over our auto industry. I'm not sure who the enemy is anymore, the Japanese or mindsets like yours that don't want to adapt.
This explains the difference in corporate behavior between Toyota and say Ford or GM. Toyota has to plan for long term competitiveness because it has to provide jobs 20 year in the future for it's employees. So it was researching hybrids in the 1990s as a hedge that it might, might become a market driver in the future. Contrast that in the US. The average CEO last only 4 years on the job. He has short term horizon. At the same time Toyota was blowing money on hybrids Ford was announcing it was focusing all development on Trucks. For decades the Business establishment said that Japan would have to move to a 'hire and fire' model that the U.S. used. Well it turns out to be wrong.
---Yeah, because, due to a demographically-driven labor shortage, they don't have enough workers. A salient fact you neglect to mention.
uhm, you just got done telling me that they have no bargaining power - now you are telling me they have a labor shortage. I'm sorry but a labor shortage creates the very definition of bargaining power. In fact if there's a labor shortage, you don't need a union to get a good wage and good working conditions. The theory of the union is to artificially create a labor shortage through a worker cartel to gain bargaining advantage.
---And Japan can afford to take a long view because they are protected by their government, as U.S. industry is not. Maybe we should shut our markets to them, as they have repeatedly shut theirs to us, hm?
Your talking about protectionism which means industrial policy. I'm not against protectionism, per se - in fact we or I should say Alexander Hamilton invented it and practiced it until around 1912. You can read about that right here: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-His...
By the way that book was written by a Korean developmental economist who teaches at Cambridge - he's real familiar with Japan's policies and how Korea did many similar things to develop their economy and he traces all the ideas back to policies first written up by Alexander Hamilton
What would I do (for the auto industry)? I would introduce widespread tenure, I would make sure that two members of the board of directors represented workers interest - one for all workers (union and non-union alike) and the other for union workers. I would make separate car companies out of each division at GM, Ford and perhaps Chrysler. I would then protect the those companies during re-organization period of up to 15 years. During those 15 years I would also provide loan guarantees to all loans made to those companies for capital improvements (with suitable regulation so we don't have another subprime mess). I would then confederate the auto unions. A confederated center would exist that was mainly responsible for lobbying to the government and for providing information and education to local unions (information like what union workers in other countries are doing) etc... The local unions would give and receive information, and money for lobbying efforts, which is very, very important. But at that point they don't need a federated union. With tenure, and board representation and unions, the workers would then have more than enough power to get what they want.
In regard to owning homes, there's a reason for that. Japan is an island country the size of Montana with 127 million people living on it - more over 70% of the country is too mountainess to live on. The cost of owning enough land in such an environment to have a home with a back and front yard is rediculous. Also, the dream of owning your own home is largely an Anglo-saxon cultural phenomina. Not that other countries don't have that - but for many, including Germany and Japan, the whole 'own your own home' is not part of their culture. In many cases they do own their own condo. Living is much more vertical and that's expensive. Also, Japanese tend to have much less debt than Americans.
----Industrialization is largely a Western, not just "Anglo-Saxon" phenomenon, like home ownership, which seems to have caught on in all industrialized societies. Japanese corporations just don't pay enough for most people to own even a large apartment, let alone a house of any size.
Well, Industrialization is not just a western phenomina anymore. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, combined those nations populations are almost as big as the U.S. and Canada. Home ownership as a goal is not tied to industrialization. The goal in Anglo-Saxon society pre-dates industrialization. The desire to be 'landed gentry' or 'gentleman farmers' has been the goal of English since after plagues ravaged london in the 1300s. On top of that, English didn't have to worry about defense, as they weren't prone to invasion. So the desire to live alone was increased. Calvinism also contributed to individualism too.
Home ownership has not caught on in all countries, especially to the extent as it is in Anglo-saxon countries. The history of detachment in Anglo-saxon world is not duplicated else where. People in Europe, and especially in the far east have lived on top of each other for a long time. In Europe this had more to do with defence. People lived in a small village and commuted to the fields. So even in agricultural areas the life style was high density. In rice growing regions of the world the relationship is different still. In pre-industrial times, Rice cultivation is labor intensive and it can't be done as efficiently individually as it can be done collectively - so even though there was private ownership of land, the work was often done collectively - irrigating fields, planting the rice in paddies, etc...
Germany is a western nation. home ownership isn't that important to Germans - not like it is to Anglo-Saxons. I've actually read that recently at this site or maybe it was daily kos. But it makes sense. I am working in Korea now. Korea is even more crowded than Japan. Land is extremely expensive, there for most new housing is verticle and because of that it's capital intensive. There is just no way around the land shortage - all housing is expensive.
Japan does have unions, company unions, as you said. In the U.S. that doesn't work because the corporation still has bargaining power advantage. So in the U.S. you have industry wide unions. But that model has created managment-union oligopoly that is inherently uncompetitive.
---More nonsense. Unions are hardly partners in the management or profits of industry in this country. And Japanese company unions are not real unions, and they have no bargaining power.
No, unions have a lock on labor for entire industries. One union, the UAW controls labor for three companies (plus a bunch in other industries such as aerospace). In the guilded age - workers were at a disadvantage because the corporation was organizationally an ownership collective was bigger than the worker. Post World War II, as far as the automobile industry, the Union was bigger organizationally than the Corporation - because one union represented workers in several companies. That's an oligopoly. Other's would call it a labor cartel. But what ever you call it is an arrangement. In essence they had too much bargaining power. But the executives went along with it - because they are only around for 5 years (10 at the outside) then they are off to the riveria.
When the Janesville plant was closing down I saw one guy being interviewed, he said he made $120,000 a year. My eyes popped out. That's more than I've ever made and I have a doctorate in law, 20 years experience in designing manufacturing systems and a bachelor degree in economic geography. I am not against an employee making that kind of money. I think they all should and would if wages kept up with increases in productivity which it hasn't since 1980. But compared to most working people, and I am friends with several tradesmen that kind of money is vastly beyond what they hope to make as electricians or plumbers or mechanics (again in unions).
So to me it looks like the union is a partner in the industry and in the profits. They bargain for managerial practices on the plant floor.
Whether or not Japanese unions are 'real unions' doesn't matter. The median wage for a worker in Japan is higher than it is here. For some reason you seem to think that Japanese companies just give out high wages out of the goodness of their hearts and for some reason American's don't. Workers have bargaining power in their place of work because they have tenure AND a union (albeit company).
Just because the structure is different than it is here, doesn't mean it doesn't work. And it doesn't mean it doesn't work better than here. Once an employee has tenure he has bargaining power. Why - because if the company is being mismanaged he can speak up and not get fired. If he's in a company union everyone can speak up and not get fired. NOW THATS BARGAINING POWER.
In America they get high wages, but they still get treated like crap because they can still get laid off. Tenure changes everything
Don't close your mind to this. The idea might save our industry. We might start exporting cars again.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
"We learned during the economic bubble that those who put money first are doomed to fail." That's how they used to talk in the US during the Depression Era.
cmoorehead
· 1 year ago
Japanese CEOs have a sense of honour ..they would consider being given a monstrous salary or bonus that they didn't earn to be shameful.
In response to US CEOs who claim that Japanese-style job tenure wouldn't work here...the much-imitated Toyota Production System (TPS), also known as 'lean manufacturing', is based on it. Taiichi Ohno, Toyota's legendary chief engineer from the 1960s, developed it in response to Toyota's shift to lifetime employment. It treats employees as fixed costs, much like equipment (only without depreciation). Since the employees are there whether you use them or not, they need to be deployed in innovative ways.
Most people have the impression that Japanese automaking is highly automated...in reality, most tasks are done by the workers, apart from things requiring levels of precision beyond human ability, like robot welding. This also results in each worker doing a variety of tasks, reducing the mind-deadening boredom of assembly line work found in conventional automotive production systems.
Here, it's all about lining the CEO's pockets. Even Henry Ford, wingnut though he was, treated his employees better than most corporations do today.
(I used to be an industrial & manufacturing engineer, but got tired of building weapons, so now I'm a graphic designer.)
bob
· 1 year ago
The Japanese economy has been in recession for 15 years. Sure Toyota is doing alright, but most companies are not. Japan has been living on savings that has now been used up. The ruling party recently stated the sales tax will increase from 5 to 10 or 15 percent and there is no backlash.
BTW, Toyota (along with other manufacturers) have have tens of thousands of immigrants doing labor for a fraction of what citizens make. Now those folks are the first to lose their jobs... and get to go back home.
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
They've had a financial recession based upon a real estate bubble. But that didn't effect their industrial economy. The bubble burst, as I recall, around 1990 or 1991. Japan's still has enjoyed some economic growth in most years - though minimal in many years. Their industrial companies are still among the most competitive in the world and our thriving. Because of a low birth rate, the social effect on the low growth hasn't been so bad.
The real estate bubble was dealt with, in many cases, companies sitting on properties they bought at inflated prices. The recession will last until the mortgages are paid off, or nearly so. We're coming up on year 20 for many of those mortgages. So I would suspect gradual easing until the 30 year mark.
One Salient Oversight
· 1 year ago
"The Japanese economy has been in recession for 15 years". No it hasn't. It was in recession 15 years ago and it is in recession now. In between those times their economy grew. Japanese unemployment was lower than the US during those 15 years and is still lower now.
Bubbles
· 1 year ago
agree
IdiotShrub
· 1 year ago
Since our (taxpayer) money is going to be bailing out the big 3, maybe we could hire him to run one. Maybe GM?
Ed
· 1 year ago
Since our (taxpayer) money is going to be bailing out the big 3, maybe we could hire him to run one. Maybe GM? Nah...I think he is too smart to do that......
IdiotShrub
· 1 year ago
Since our (taxpayer) money is going to be bailing out the big 3, maybe we could hire him to run one. Maybe GM?
Laito
· 1 year ago
At least he didn't commit suicide like those samurai guys. Lol.
Thao Ly
· 1 year ago
I wanted to work for them! Their outfits are amazingly sexy.
All Comments
On the assumption the above is correct, it is a model that should be adopted by American business.
In regard to the auto companies I wish Obama would take this opportunity to introduce some structural reforms. He should force them to alter their corporate charters to cause them to look and behave more like Japanese companies.
Japan provides widescale tenure for employees.
In essence this makes them quasi public jobs projects. But when this occurs it forces the company to plan long term and put workers interest on one of the front burners - it moves executive pay to the back burner. This is because it is easier to fire a CEO than an employee.
We've heard, for decades by the Business Community that Japan's tenure system is not sustainable. That they would be forced to adopt our system. Well look who's not sustainable now.
As it turns out, workers are better proxies for long term shareholders. If you don't believe me ask any GM shareholder if they wouldn't trade it straight up for a share of Toyota.
In the 1990s Toyota was developing hybrid technologies, not because they were greener than GH, but because it needed to safe guard or hedge itself from a market shift in the direction of energy efficiency.
Meanwhile, at the exact same time, Ford announced a policy that it was abandoning cars for Trucks and SUVs. Ford made more in the short run and their execs took home the bonuses. But the market shifted towards the hybrid technologies and Toyota and Honda were there ready and waiting.
In retrospect Ford was taking bigger risk, not Toyota. Toyota couldn't take Ford's risk, they have to provide jobs for their workers 20 years from now. Keep in mind the average American CEO's tenure is around 4 years.
While we are at it, I wish Obama would break the auto companies up.
Chop Ford in two, and GM into 3 or 4.
First of all, we can't have businesses that are too big to fail. If they get that big we have to divide them up, like Standard Oil - so that if one fails their other domestics around to fill their place - and when they get to big, they get divided again.
Japan has five or six independent auto companies at half the market size and one tenth the amount of paved roads. There is no way that a nation that consumes 14 million cars and has millions of miles of paved roads should have only 3 car companies, let alone one or none.
I expect ideology out of Republicans, and pragmatism out of Democrats.
You need multiple companies to have healthy domestic competition. I would do this and inject 3-6 years of some kind of a protection scheme to provide for re-adjustment with tarrifs and quotas to the foreign imports, and a bias towards those companies that had plants in the states already.
It's time for structural reforms. I assume that will include health care. The health care system is so inefficient now that medicare for all would release enough purchasing power to turn the economy around in two or three years.
I hear you on that one! There is so much inequality and gender discrimination in the Japanese corporate culture, let alone society at large. I wish they would adopt a more equal pay structure though, admittedly, even the US has to work on that a bit more.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...
I'm not an executive, I'm not a manager, or in marketing. Hell, I've been known to clean a bathroom and push some carts - and I can tell you, from even my "lowly" position at Costco that I make a living wage and have every intention of retiring from Costco. It's the Anti-Walmart, anti-greed alternative. Plus our products are better!
And if it helps to know it - he's also a generous Dem:
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations...
And this ABC article says Jim, as CEO makes about TWELVE TIMES the average worker on the floor.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/business/story?id=13...
The Republican economy has driven states, counties and cities to the brink of bankruptcy. In Washington the state budget is predicted to be up to $5.1 billion in the red. To get the budget in balance the Governor has directed the state Office of Financial Management to find ways to slash the state budget without cutting services. In October Washington State University (WSU)was asked to cut $6 million from its $254 million budget by June 30. In response to the WSU President Elson S. Floyd asked the regents to cut his pay as part of the university's efforts to slash its budget. Floyd requested a $100,000 cut in pay.
Intro
The Republican economy has driven states, counties and cities to the brink of bankruptcy. In Washington the state budget is predicted to be up to $5.1 billion in the red. To get the budget in balance the Governor has directed the state Office of Financial Management to find ways to slash the state budget without cutting services. In October Washington State University (WSU)was asked to cut $6 million from its $254 million budget by June 30. In response to the WSU President Elson S. Floyd asked the regents to cut his pay as part of the university's efforts to slash its budget. Floyd requested a $100,000 cut in pay.
Floyd's 14% pay reduction was made because: "These are exceedingly tough times for my students, faculty and staff. We will be asking them to think more creatively and work harder with less as we deal with budgetary restraints. It is incumbent upon me to lead by example."
Imagine that...leading by example. It should be done by more of our "leaders". Leaders in finance, industry, and government need to lead by example. They are rewarded when they "lead" in good times with higher wages, stock options, deferred compensation and other perks. They should be equally willing to lead by example when the companies, agencies and other sectors of our economy are suffering. They should share the pain.
I met Elson Floyd briefly last year shortly after he assumed leadership of Washington State University. I was at a football game and he was working the crowd. He went row by row, introducing himself to the fans and thanking them for supporting the football program and the university. I was impressed by his outreach then and now I am even more impressed with his understanding of the rol of a leader in times of stress.
For more on Floyd's unique example of leadership you can read the article in an area newspaper at: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/...
A large number of tenured employees. Please see the comment I left up thread.
For decades the Business establishment said that Japan couldn't keep at this. That they would have to adapt to the American model of hire and fire to survive. As it turns out, there's is the superior model.
Why? When you have tenured employees, you have to think long term. Also, it encourages a sense of community and commitment to the entity for all working there. In most Japanese companies, the CEO came up through the ranks - he's part of the community so his support structure is based in that community. When employees have tenure there's an accountability to them. It's easier to fire the guy at the top then a mass of workers at the bottom. The first place to make a cut is at the top, usually in the form of pay cuts for executives. That's also called leadership - but it's what happens in a tenured environment.
Because of tenure, CEO's have to think long term. Most US CEOs last around 4 years - so their thinking is really short term. You can see why their institution endure, even during huge slumps, while ours stagger from crisis to crisis.
1)---"Extensive studying"? In what language? Not English.
Logical fallacy- Ad hominem- attack on person not discussion on the point.
2)Since, as your irrelevant resume states, you have never worked on a factory floor or belonged to a union, you have no idea what workers want nor how unions should achieve that.
Logical fallacy- Another adhominem or attack on person- example you are not qualified to speak about the red sea because you have not travelled to Africa or Asia. Plus Cosnostradamus ignores other relevant experience bubble has such as working in GM and Chrysler and knowledge of Japanese labor law.
3)---By which you mean everybody is relatively poor. Such statistics have little bearing on people's real lives in this country.
Fallacy-This is just talking in thin air and asserting his belief as a fact-fallacy of appeal to belief. Japans GDP is $33,500 and it is a big lender to "rich" United states-so??
If American companies treated the job of CEO as a reward of decades of service in the company, things would be different. But that's the problem; market equilibrium isn't actually a very good position for the company. For this reason, there ought to be some sort of scheme for limits of CEO pay, for protection of the companies themselves who are getting screwed by the CEO's.
Tenure forces companies to plan for long term competitiveness to ensure employment. Check out some of my comments up thread
If we had such a thing then the big three automakers would have committed sepaku on the House floor by now for their idiocy.
Actually, the Japanese are fascist union-busting bastards, here and back home. They allow "company unions" only, controlled by the company. Auto-workers in Japan can't even afford homes; many younger workers live in company dorms. There is absolutely nothing admirable about the Japanese way of doing business, especially the auto business.
But our car corps are still worse. We should require seppuku of Detroit CEO's with any bail-out.
And here's another corporate shill on Obama's team of retreads. Change, my perfect white ass!
.
(- Please note, I did extensive studying of Japan's Corporate law while in law school. Before that I've also worked at GM and Caterpillar designing materials management systems for a decade and a half. I also have a degree in economic geography)
#1 - Most Japanese firms have wide scale tenure for Employees. When this happens it changes the behavior of firms and it achieves for employees most of the things they want to achieve by way of our Unionization.
#2 - To drive home the point - Japan, has the broadest distribution of wealth in the first world.
Alone among 'major' economies (meaning in excess of one trillion dollars GNP) Japan's distribution of wealth is equal to that we normally associate with only Scandinavian countries - which of course are all smaller countries.
What happens when companies have tenure is that it alters bargaining power in favor of the employees.
It also forces the company to have to put employee interest before everyone else. In both Japan and the United States, the ostensible corporate governance rule is "shareholder primacy" - meaning shareholders come first. But in the U.S. the way that rule works is "executive primacy". In Japan, because of Tenure, it means Employee primacy.
In Japan, because of the Tenure system, the interest of the Employees come first.
This explains the difference in corporate behavior between Toyota and say Ford or GM.
Toyota has to plan for long term competitiveness because it has to provide jobs 20 year in the future for it's employees. So it was researching hybrids in the 1990s as a hedge that it might, might become a market driver in the future. Contrast that in the US. The average CEO last only 4 years on the job. He has short term horizon. At the same time Toyota was blowing money on hybrids Ford was announcing it was focusing all development on Trucks.
For decades the Business establishment said that Japan would have to move to a 'hire and fire' model that the U.S. used. Well it turns out to be wrong.
In regard to owning homes, there's a reason for that. Japan is an island country the size of Montana with 127 million people living on it - more over 70% of the country is too mountainess to live on. The cost of owning enough land in such an environment to have a home with a back and front yard is rediculous. Also, the dream of owning your own home is largely an Anglo-saxon cultural phenomina. Not that other countries don't have that - but for many, including Germany and Japan, the whole 'own your own home' is not part of their culture. In many cases they do own their own condo. Living is much more vertical and that's expensive. Also, Japanese tend to have much less debt than Americans.
Japan does have unions, company unions, as you said. In the U.S. that doesn't work because the corporation still has bargaining power advantage. So in the U.S. you have industry wide unions. But that model has created managment-union oligopoly that is inherently uncompetitive.
The reason company unions do work in Japan is because of the Tenure system. The combination of tenure (which is recognized by the courts) and employee unions give Japanese workers more bargaining power than U.S. workers have even with Industry Unions - because in Japan companies put employee interest first, and even with a Union, GM still doesn't value it's employees as high as its executives and stockholders.
The reason we don't hear and know more about the Japanese system and why it works so well is that neither American Business leadership nor American Union Leadership wants Americans to know more about it.
Executives don't want to lose their primacy. The UAW's leadership commands control of labor for the entire industry. They don't want to be chopped down to either being a small company sized union, or being a confederated center (where as today it is a federated center).
Remember: the key issue is bargaining power. Before 1860, even with three million trapped in slavery, the U.S. had the broadest distribution of wealth in the history of the world. In 1861 we had a war to free those slaves. Yet, 25 years after those slaves were free the U.S. had the most concentrated wealth in the world.
Why? Because the invention of the limited liability (modern) corporation. Prior to 1860 - most people bargained as individuals for their wage. As a hedge in favor of labor, there was always the call of cheap land on the frontier. After the Civil war individuals had to bargain with corporations - which is a collective and collectives have bargaining power over individuals. This created the gilded age of concentrated wealth and widespread squalor. The problem wasn't solved until the recognition of the validity of industry wide unions in the 1930s. But that model created oligopolies and American industry lost its competitiveness in many industries: steel and autos were first and foremost.
The Japanese model works. The comnpany becomes a community where everyone has the same stake in the success of the firm. Executives and Employees are in the same boat, they are no longer enemies but allies. In America Executives at Ford have more in community with Executives at GM and the same is true for workers. In Japan, it's the reverse. Neither executives, nor workers, are inclined to commune with those from competing companies.
(The Japanese model is very community oriented - in fact it's modeled upon the village-community formed during the Shogunate years - where if the community didn't manage it's affairs properly, the local lord would come with his samuria to rape, pillage and burn the village down - so people of the village learned to get alone real well, whether they were rich or poor they all had power to bring the house down. To understand just how strong this ethic was - for nearly 300 years, Christianity was outlawed. The penalty was death. For 300 years entire villages remained Christain yet no one outside those Villages ever knew).
If we are going to save our country and its manufacturing base, we are going to have to adapt the positive aspects of the Japanese model - they are more sustainable than our own. While we are doing it we can improve on their model - make it better and make us more competitive.
There are problems with Japanese society - but the industrial model is state of the art. They have the most competitive companies, that are good at survining prolonged down turns, and provide great wages and distribution of wealth. If we had their system, we would do it better than they do. Why? Because we are less hierarchical and more egalitarian than they are. We have more resources (they have almost none), better higher education system, and yes, more land, so cheaper resource cost.
Please don't go off so cochsure of yourself in critizing the Japanese system. We obviously won't import there system but we can and probably will do a lot worse when we don't. Right now we are looking at losing our entire industrial base.
Also see please some of my comments on this up thread.
Well you left out a couple of key points. (- Please note, I did extensive studying of Japan's Corporate law while in law school. Before that I've also worked at GM and Caterpillar designing materials management systems for a decade and a half. I also have a degree in economic geography)
---"Extensive studying"? In what language? Not English.
#1 - Most Japanese firms have wide scale tenure for Employees. When this happens it changes the behavior of firms and it achieves for employees most of the things they want to achieve by way of our Unionization.
---Since, as your irrelevant resume states, you have never worked on a factory floor or belonged to a union, you have no idea what workers want nor how unions should achieve that.
#2 - To drive home the point - Japan, has the broadest distribution of wealth in the first world.
---By which you mean everybody is relatively poor. Such statistics have little bearing on people's real lives in this country.
Alone among 'major' economies (meaning in excess of one trillion dollars GNP) Japan's distribution of wealth is equal to that we normally associate with only Scandinavian countries - which of course are all smaller countries. What happens when companies have tenure is that it alters bargaining power in favor of the employees.
---Without independent unions, the workers have no bargaining power at all.
It also forces the company to have to put employee interest before everyone else. In both Japan and the United States, the ostensible corporate governance rule is "shareholder primacy" - meaning shareholders come first. But in the U.S. the way that rule works is "executive primacy". In Japan, because of Tenure, it means Employee primacy. In Japan, because of the Tenure system, the interest of the Employees come first.
---Arrant nonsense. The interests of the company's owners and managers always come first, everywhere. Japan is no "workers' paradise."
This explains the difference in corporate behavior between Toyota and say Ford or GM. Toyota has to plan for long term competitiveness because it has to provide jobs 20 year in the future for it's employees. So it was researching hybrids in the 1990s as a hedge that it might, might become a market driver in the future. Contrast that in the US. The average CEO last only 4 years on the job. He has short term horizon. At the same time Toyota was blowing money on hybrids Ford was announcing it was focusing all development on Trucks. For decades the Business establishment said that Japan would have to move to a 'hire and fire' model that the U.S. used. Well it turns out to be wrong.
---Yeah, because, due to a demographically-driven labor shortage, they don't have enough workers. They have the oldest population in the world. A salient fact you neglect to mention.
---And Japan can afford to take a long view because they are protected by their government, as U.S. industry is not. Maybe we should shut our markets to them, as they have repeatedly shut theirs to us, hm?
In regard to owning homes, there's a reason for that. Japan is an island country the size of Montana with 127 million people living on it - more over 70% of the country is too mountainess to live on. The cost of owning enough land in such an environment to have a home with a back and front yard is rediculous. Also, the dream of owning your own home is largely an Anglo-saxon cultural phenomina. Not that other countries don't have that - but for many, including Germany and Japan, the whole 'own your own home' is not part of their culture. In many cases they do own their own condo. Living is much more vertical and that's expensive. Also, Japanese tend to have much less debt than Americans.
----Industrialization is largely a Western, not just "Anglo-Saxon" phenomenon, like home ownership, which seems to have caught on in all industrialized societies. Japanese corporations just don't pay enough for most people to own even a large apartment, let alone a house of any size.
Japan does have unions, company unions, as you said. In the U.S. that doesn't work because the corporation still has bargaining power advantage. So in the U.S. you have industry wide unions. But that model has created managment-union oligopoly that is inherently uncompetitive.
---More nonsense. Unions are hardly partners in the management or profits of industry in this country. Japanese company unions are not real unions; they have no bargaining power.
The reason company unions do work in Japan is because of the Tenure system. The combination of tenure (which is recognized by the courts) and employee unions give Japanese workers more bargaining power than U.S. workers have even with Industry Unions - because in Japan companies put employee interest first, and even with a Union, GM still doesn't value it's employees as high as its executives and stockholders. The reason we don't hear and know more about the Japanese system and why it works so well is that neither American Business leadership nor American Union Leadership wants Americans to know more about it.
---Yeah, because we outlawed slavery here. Nobody in America wants to be stuck in one dead-end job for life, virtual property of the company.
Executives don't want to lose their primacy. The UAW's leadership commands control of labor for the entire industry. They don't want to be chopped down to either being a small company sized union, or being a confederated center (where as today it is a federated center). Remember: the key issue is bargaining power. Before 1860, even with three million trapped in slavery, the U.S. had the broadest distribution of wealth in the history of the world. In 1861 we had a war to free those slaves. Yet, 25 years after those slaves were free the U.S. had the most concentrated wealth in the world.
---Really? The BLS was gathering statistics in the mid-Nineteenth Century? BWA-HAW-HAH-HA!!!
---There are a number of unions in the auto industry in America, not just the UAW. But their "primacy" has been undermined by anti-union Japanese factories in the traditionally racist & anti-worker South.
Why? Because the invention of the limited liability (modern) corporation. Prior to 1860 - most people bargained as individuals for their wage. As a hedge in favor of labor, there was always the call of cheap land on the frontier. After the Civil war individuals had to bargain with corporations - which is a collective and collectives have bargaining power over individuals. This created the gilded age of concentrated wealth and widespread squalor. The problem wasn't solved until the recognition of the validity of industry wide unions in the 1930s. But that model created oligopolies and American industry lost its competitiveness in many industries: steel and autos were first and foremost.
---American industry was at its' height in the period leading up to and following the Depression. It was also a period of labor struggles. It wasn't until the unfair and often illegal competition from Japan that our industries began to shrink. Read some actual history some time. Your absurd anti-Union rhetoric keeps getting in the way of the facts.
The Japanese model works. The comnpany becomes a community where everyone has the same stake in the success of the firm. Executives and Employees are in the same boat, they are no longer enemies but allies. In America Executives at Ford have more in community with Executives at GM and the same is true for workers. In Japan, it's the reverse. Neither executives, nor workers, are inclined to commune with those from competing companies.
---"More in community"? Again, Try writing in English when you're presuming to school us on our own history.
---And, yeah. We'll see how well the Japanese model works without American markets to fuel it. One advantage of the meltdown: Imports will plummet.
(The Japanese model is very community oriented - in fact it's modeled upon the village-community formed during the Shogunate years - where if the community didn't manage it's affairs properly, the local lord would come with his samuria to rape, pillage and burn the village down - so people of the village learned to get alone real well, whether they were rich or poor they all had power to bring the house down. To understand just how strong this ethic was - for nearly 300 years, Christianity was outlawed. The penalty was death. For 300 years entire villages remained Christain yet no one outside those Villages ever knew).
---Oh, I get it: We need a "community oriented" society based on fear of rape, murder, looting and arson. Now THAT'S a civilization! Great model! Some community.
If we are going to save our country and its manufacturing base, we are going to have to adapt the positive aspects of the Japanese model - they are more sustainable than our own. While we are doing it we can improve on their model - make it better and make us more competitive. There are problems with Japanese society - but the industrial model is state of the art. They have the most competitive companies, that are good at survining prolonged down turns, and provide great wages and distribution of wealth. If we had their system, we would do it better than they do. Why? Because we are less hierarchical and more egalitarian than they are. We have more resources (they have almost none), better higher education system, and yes, more land, so cheaper resource cost.
----Japanese are more egalitarian than we are? Tell that to their "God-Emperor." Or just take a look at their verb tables some time. They are one of the most hierarchical societies in the world. Ask any Japanese-Korean, or Okinawan. They are also one of the most racist societies in the world. The resulting anti-immigrant sentiments and policies are largely responsible for their ongoing labor shortage, despite which, workers still have little job-mobility or bargaining leverage.
---The Japanese system is based on extended zaibatsu and keiretsu, interlocking companies, which you don't bother to mention: This leads to the sort of dangerous, fascist combination of government, the military, industry, finance and labor which led the Japanese into their disastrous and genocidal wars. It was not until we soundly defeated them and took over their country that their society began to function as a modern one. The Japanese system is nothing more than a bad copy of the U.S. system, with those fascistic elements still surviving underneath: The very elements you would foist upon us.
Please don't go off so cochsure of yourself in critizing the Japanese system. We obviously won't import there system but we can and probably will do a lot worse when we don't. Right now we are looking at losing our entire industrial base.
---If we were to lose our industrial base, it wouldn't be because of our greater freedoms. It would be precisely because of our blind encouragement of "free" trade over fair trade, and the deliberate targeting of our basic industries by the Japanese. They are no model for us: They are our worst enemy. We could wipe them out economically in a few years by simply turning their own unfair trade policies right back on them.
Also see please some of my comments on this up thread.
A lot of hooey.
.
Good effort, but maybe try not to be a dick and your point will come across a bit better.
At one point he says Japanese workers have no bargaining power, and then he says that Japan has a labor shortage, which is to say, they have bargaining power.
I would rather he tell me how things could be changed for the better - and why those changes would be better. Instead he just seems to be saying - keep things the same and close the boarders.
If you want to reply to what I've said, Bubbles, reply to me. Common courtesy.
You obviously missed my point. IN SPITE OF the fact that there is a labor shortage, Japanese workers have NO bargaining power because they do not have a bargaining agent, or union. Company unions represent the company, not the workers. Get it? And that is why they can't afford to own their own homes, or even a car, even if they make cars themselves. It's a closed system, and the workers are shut out of it, as far as control of it goes.
Things here could be improved by holding other countries to a standard of fair trade. Unless workers rights, environmental protections, consumer protection, and product safety standards current in the U.S. are applied in the countries with which we trade, we will always be at a competitive disadvantage. And we will always be subsidizing bad behavior by our trading partners.
Closing our borders selectively should always be an option, as it is in every other country in the world. If a country does not meet our standards, and cannot or will not trade fairly, then they should not be allowed access to our markets.
The standard of living in this country, for which unions are largely responsible, has been steadily eroded by so-called "free" trade. It's no accident that our standard of living has diminished in direct proportion to the shrinkage of our union work-force. Thousands and thousands of good jobs have been lost to foreign competitors who violate every civilized standard, from child labor to product safety. Whole industries have been wiped out in a single generation. We can only stop this by applying the same high standards for which our parents and grandparents fought to every new trade deal. They all want access to our markets. Why should they get it so cheaply, and to our direct detriment?
.
In Japan the company operates under a rule of employee primacy. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF BARGAINING POWER - CEOs IN THE U.S. GET 400 TIMES A WORKERS SALARY BECAUSE IN THE U.S. EXECUTIVES HAVE PRIMACY.
Check the facts - the median wage as a percentage of GNP is higher in Japan than it is the United States.
Here is how it works:
In BOTH Japan and the U.S. corporate law OSTENSIBLY says that boards of directors must manage the company under the rule of SHAREHOLDER primacy. That means, in theory the shareholders interest is suppose to come first.
iIn NEITHER Japan or the U.S. does 'shareholder primacy' hold. In the U.S. executives control the board. So you have EXECUTIVE PRIMACY.
In the U.S. you have Executive primacy. Executives have the bargaining power. And they screw the corporation, the shareholders, the workers, everything so that they can gain a wage that is 400 to 1000 times a normal workers salary. That's just bargaining power by a different means.
In Japan, because of Tenure, the Executive doesn't have primacy. Its easier to fire one executive than it is to fire ten workers. Furthermore, with tenure, a worker can stand up to the corporation if they think it's not being run right and now worried about getting fired. Because their is a union, he can get lots of people to stand up with him if the company is not being run well. And because they can fire the executive easier than the ten workers, let along many workers, the board fires the executive. That's how it works.
Furthermore, it works that way here where there is Tenure too. I saw it at my own law school. There was a minor scandal about not allowing the Military to recruit on campus because of open discrimination of Gays, write after 9/11. It was in the papers every day. And every day the dean of the law school said he was consulting with the faculty to see how to resolve the situation. You see, he wasn't worried about the 'stock holders' of the law school - the University, its chancelor or it's board of regents. He wasn't worried about the administrative employees. He was solely worried about the tenured faculty and worked with them to resolve the problem.
And by the way - the unions are not controlled by the company. They are controlled by the employees. Because of employee primacy, the interest are closely aligned. If an executive does something wrong - the union will do a one hour strike. That sends a message that the executive is courting a vote of no confidence with the employees, and he'll be removed if he doesn't shape up.
Look at the stats. Japanese make good pay and have job security there companies are more competitive. And If we do this we would do it better.
If you gave wallmart employees tenure and a union the size of the company - they would have more bargaining power than they have now, and would get vacations and maybe some other benefits. If they had universal health insurance here, there's also less to bargain for - just pay, working conditions and time off. In fact in tenured companies workers get long sabbaticals - is very very common.
There's more than one way to arrive at bargaining power. The Japanese invented a new way. Every American said it was worse, that it couldn't last, that the companies wouldn't be competitive. They have been saying it for 40 or 50 years. Last time I look the book value of GM was $16 billion and the book value of Toyota was $160 billion.
I'm not sure what you arguing about. If tenure and company union arrives at bargaining power for Employees, then it's fair. In which case, trade with Japan is fair. We just opted for a clumsier bargaining arrangement that's all.
You know, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
We are applying a sledge hammer where a tweezers might be a better tool. We have to look closely at those tools, and not criticise them simply because we don't know them, understand them etc... If there's is the better way, then we have a duty to investigate thoroughly and with an open mind.
When I designed systems, I mapped the current system out. Then I mapped the "to be" system out, implementing every possible short cut and improvement I could. I checked far and wide for ideas for improvement. If I found one being done in bora bora, I looked to see if I could put it in place in Peoria.
The past is behind us. If there's a better way, lets go after it with gusto.
Thanks for proving an example of an ad hominem attack, Reese Boisse, which is all you have just done; although it's not relevant to my post or my arguments. I attacked his arguments and his claim to expertise, not him personally. That's an "ad hominem" argument: A personal attack, not an attack on an argument or someone's expertise.
They do not have unions in Japan. A company union is not a union. Period. And workers in America have no bargaining power except through unions. Get it?
As to being "a dick," in your adolescent parlance, I defer to your experience, and your expertise at that.
.
Either way, you still haven't explained why these Japanese company unions do not serve the worker as well as "real" unions other than to say that a company union can never represent the workers' interests. I've never worked an assembly floor in the US or Japan, plus thus far I've done better on my own than I would by joining an applicable union, so sure, I'm just full of shit, but if all these people who say that the philosophical difference in the way businesses are run in the US vs. Japan is that for the latter, the worker is actually valued as s/he should be, as the core of the business, and that they are supposedly treated as such, why can the company absolutely not represent their interests? I'm not trying to be argumentative, if I'm coming off that way- this is just something I know relatively little about, and I don't know the answers to these questions.
You can't just "Period, end of discussion". That's not arguing, that's a refusal to argue.
I've provided data.
I agree - companies, even Japanese companies, don't give money away. It does take bargaining power. I agree that a company union alone does not proved sufficient bargaining power to affect workers fairly. However I dispute that it takes an industry wide union to gain fair bargaining. In my argument I suggest that wide scale tenure changes bargaining power sufficiently to make a union company sufficient. Alone a company sized union is insufficient - history has shown that -, but include tenure, and suddenly a company sized union is sufficient. And the proof is in the distribution of wealth. Japan has the broadest distribution of wealth in the first world.
No nation does better than that.
In the aggregate, all you can ask of your bargaining power arrangements is that they allow for all society to advance when productivity advances, not just the rich, not just the middle class and workers and not just the poor. Ideally you want every body advancing.
Bargaining power is everything. I agree. Well almost everything, the size of the pile of money you are bargaining over is the other factor. Over all Japan has less resources than we do.
You introduce the idea that there is only one way to give bargaining power to workers. I say you are wrong. I explain another method and I provide the data.
see here:
Per capita GNP: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo...
Wealth distribution:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo...
I've stated my argument, I've provided data, I've shown examples of how the mechanism works.
I'm not disagreeing that unions provide workers with bargaining power. And they work really well for trades and I even think they work fine in service areas where there's no worry about losing out to overseas competition. But publicly traded industrial manufacturing corporations that compete on an international market are losing and have been losing to another model.
It's not unfair trade if Japan's workers have bargaining power, and the distribution of wealth stats say that Japanese workers enjoy more bargaining power than any society in the world today. That's indisputable. Its a fact in those tables.
The question then comes down to which model is more competitive. How do Japanese products stand up to American products in third country markets? If you go to some place, like Fiji or Greece or Chile or Kenya - who wins in those markets? The products of Detroit or Nagoya?
Explain your argument, then present you facts. However, I suggest that I already know the basic facts. It's what I started from. My father worked in the maintenance department for a large unionized manufacturing company. I know unions give bargaining power to employees, but the existing system is over kill that is killing our industrial base.
If all you say is 'company unions aren't unions, period' then you are conceding the argument.
I realize what I'm explaining is a new concept for many people. It's been kept hidden: the Japanese don't want us to know about it, they don't want us to become competitive; the Executives and CEOs don't want us to know about it because they don't want to lose Primacy and their big wages; and the big wigs at the Unions don't want us to know about it because they would loose immense power - in fact many would become relics. All those entrenched interest want to say what you are saying. They don't have facts, so they just shout real loud: "IT WON'T WORK PERIOD". Meanwhile the people of east Asia are eating our lunch and we can't figure out how to become more competitive.
It's an entirely different, and new system. The people who benefit are the workers, the shareholders (because workers are a better proxy than executives to there interest - just compare the Toyota shareholder to the GM shareholer), and society benefits from greater competitiveness and more economic stability.
If you are an entrenched interest to the old system, I'm sorry. You had a good run. But it's not working and if we want to salvage our industry we need to look at this other way.
Imagine, if America had Japan's distribution of wealth most American's would make 50% more than they do now, and possibly 100% more. Think of that. We could go back to the time where one parent could stay at home, if they so choose to.
I rest my case.
Having studied a bit of Japan's political economics (in English and Japanese), I understand that the Japanese system is not nearly at magical as Bubbles makes it out to be but rather than offering data to back your statements, your method of rebuttal (the bold text, caps lock, and exclamation points in particular) comes across as angry and antagonistic.
---American industry was at its' height in the period leading up to and following the Depression. It was also a period of labor struggles. It wasn't until the unfair and often illegal competition from Japan that our industries began to shrink. Read some actual history some time. Your absurd anti-Union rhetoric keeps getting in the way of the facts.
Unfair and often illegal? Why do you think such "illegal" competition was allowed? Following WWII, American industries clamored to keep the Japanese industrial machine from rising again but with the advent of the Cold War, the rejuvenation of Japan as an economic power became a top priority for American influence in Asia. During Japan's pre-WWII industrialization it had used E. Asia as a dumping ground for its numerous exports, but this couldn't continue once Japan was defeated, so the US in a strategic move became Japan's export market. Unfair? Perhaps. Illegal? Sanctioned by the US government.
While I think that you make several valid points, you come across as the cynical gaijin, bitter because his illusions of Japan have been shattered. Not saying that this is the case, but you remind me of several friends who had all these preconceived notions about Japan but became angry when they got there and discovered it wasn't the magical, happy place they'd made it out to be. Yes, there is racism towards non-Japanese, and Japan's develomental state capitalist does have strong fascist elements from it's zaibatsu and keiretsu roots. But in no way does this make Japan "our worst enemy," and we can stand to take a few elements from their model, just as they can stand to take a few things from the US.
I used bold type so that you could tell my remarks apart from his. Sorry, didn't realize you were so typographically sensitive.
Try to focus on the actual argument. I was talking about the practice of "dumping" or selling below cost in the US by Japan, targeting certain key industries such as steel, ball bearings, transistors and printed circuits. Anyone pretending to know anything about trade in that period between Japan and the US would have known what I was talking about. This isn't the place for lengthy dissertations or extensive footnotes. If you have specific questions, ask them.
Trade is, in a sense, warfare. But even in war there are rules. At the same time, Japan has erected an endless series of barriers to US exports, most of which were later found to be in violation of existing trade agreements with the US. That has to stop.
Gaijin is a racist term, as it is used today, and I object to it. Don't impute motives or emotions to me: You don't know me at all. I never had any illusions about Japan. I see it for what it is: A competitor willing to use any means to win in the war known as "free trade."
We need to wise up. We can no longer afford the luxury of carrying other countries in these wars. Either they meet our standards and play by the rules, or they lose access to our markets.
Japan is not our very worst enemy, but in trade terms, they are certainly not on our side. As to copying their system, it was mostly copied from us in the first place. American experts introduced the concepts of co-operative management and worker-input to the production design process.
Detroit decide to stick with their adversarial mode, and they paid for it. They've done better since they allowed more cooperation, but they still seem to think they can control US markets regardless of actual needs and wants among US consumers, or such realities as the price of gas.
Unions are not to blame for this. If they had a large ownership stake, and a major role in managing the companies, I think we'd all be better off. But the oppressively anti-labor methods of the Japanese have no place here. That's not "bitterness." That's just a fact.
Congress should find a way to have the auto-workers take ownership of the companies. I think that's the only way out of these stupid cycles of boom & bust. But I don't think the DINOs will go for it.
.
I never claimed to know you. In fact, I clearly stated, "Not saying this is the case, but you remind me..." As for the racism of the term gaijin, that's a linguistic discussion completely tangential to our current one, so I'm not going to go there at this time.
I'm also going to disregard the "typographically sensitive" comment because I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat argument with you; I'm looking for actual discussion. My stance remains the same, however: your overall delivery--the boldface type and other features that denote yelling--combined with your, as Reese put it, vitriolic discussion style makes you sound less credible and negates your valid points. I'm going to continue to attempt discussion with you for the time being because I am interested in what you have to say and how much information you have to back it.
As I said above, though I disagree with your approach and feel that your views are too far skewed in one direction, I also don't agree with Bubbles across the board. Based on my studies, I believe that there are things wrong with the Japanese economic system and that it's a system teetering on crumbling foundations. I also agree that Japan is "A competitor willing to use any means to win in the war known as 'free trade,'" but what country isn't? You may approach this from a realist worldview, but I consider myself more of a constructivist--the system is what we make of it. Anyway, there's no need to alienate allies with your militancy, or attack me with your... ascerbic wit because by sinking to personal attacks, we lose the chance to discuss, to learn a new point of view, and to reformulate our own beliefs.
2) Trade is, in a sense, warfare. But even in war there are rules. At the same time, Japan has erected an endless series of barriers to US exports, most of which were later found to be in violation of existing trade agreements with the US. That has to stop.
I think both sides here are equally guilty of violating the rules of trade warfare. In the US's case, I'll cite the East Asian currency crisis, which financially destabilized the entire region and caused civil unrest in certain nations that continues to the present day. How was that not both illegal and unfair?
3) As for your other points, I'm not sure whether they were directed at me or not as I never claimed to be anti-union. I will "try to focus on the actual argument," as you say, however, I also will do my part to negate incorrect or unfounded claims. For instance, to respectfully disagree with you, everybody in Japan is not relatively poor. Yes, there is a lower home ownership rate than the U.S. but, according to Housing Finance International, as of 2000 approx. 60% of Japanese own their homes, which in no way means relatively poor--particularly when you see the homeownership rates for America (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annu...) which are 65-75% percent but drop below 60% when you look at non-White Americans.
Now I want to learn from you. What parts of the Japanese system do you find brital. What parts do you think we could stand to import?
My position is, I would like to see American companies try a system based upon widespread tenure, and perhaps board representation. This strengthens workers hands, so to compensate I would reduce the union to be company sized, but not company controlled. I believe this creates a better bargaining situation for workers and the company, and creates a more communitarian work environment which makes the company more competitive. I believe that long term shareholders benefit from employee primacy because both have interest in long term growth of the company.
I've observed where my university demonstrated faculty primacy during a controversy there. So I think that system works.
Since the auto industry is in a crisis - I think this system should be tried there first and that this would be a good time to try it. But I think the companies should be given protection for a period of time to make adjustments.
I also don't think there's much of a chance of any of this happening.
So yes, I'd be very interested in yours, and anybody's thoughts on these things, but I would like to here them in a constructive dialogue kind of way.
In general I believe in Unions. What I want is a distribution of wealth that resembles Japan's and companies that are healthy and competitive. A country as productive as this one is, we would all be much much better off. Unions are one way of achieving that in many areas of the economy - but certainly not all, and it's not working in the auto sector very well and hasn't really ever.
I think in the current environment, the argument for tenure is much stronger than the arguments for unions. All publicly held companies suffer from fractured ownership problem. That gives executives primacy. Since executives average only about 4 years tenure, their policies are short sited. The shareholders lose out. I think workers are a better proxy for shareholder's interest - long term, and society's interest as well. On that basis, I think the tenure arguement is extremely strong.
At that point, once you have tenure, you only need a local union to give voice to employee interest and you are there.
These days my 80 year old father works for Walmart as a greeter. I'm greatful that they are willing to employ him when no one else will. My father thrives on work so I believe it helps keep him alive and ticking. But I imagine if Walmart gave 80% of their workers tenure, how that might change things for them. And throw in a union that they controlled.
If we were like most countries, and had universal health care, there's not much left to bargain for: just wages, time off and working conditions. I guess that would make them costco employees.
"----Japanese are more egalitarian than we are? Tell that to their "God-Emperor." Or just take a look at their verb tables some time. They are one of the most hierarchical societies in the world."
Emphasis mine, to help with your reading comprehension.
Yeah. Got that one backwards. Thanks. Nice catch. 4am in Hawaii.
.
---"Extensive studying"? In what language? Not English.
My Law Professor spoke fluent Japanese. I read through hundreds of papers on Japanese Corp. Law, usually written by either Japanese or by westerners who spoke Japanese. These were real research papers I read with real data, by real experts.
#1 - Most Japanese firms have wide scale tenure for Employees. When this happens it changes the behavior of firms and it achieves for employees most of the things they want to achieve by way of our Unionization.
---Since, as your irrelevant resume states, you have never worked on a factory floor, or belonged to a union, you have no idea what workers want, or how unions should achieve that.
Of course I've worked on a factory floor. I did belong to a union when I worked in a grocery store, also the people I worked with on the factory floor belonged. Also members of my family and close friends also work for a union. What are you trying to imply - that you union workers have some kind of dark skull and bones type of secret that they don't want the public to know? If what union workers want is a secret then it's really hard for them to get it isn't it? You're not winning me over to your arguement with that.
#2 - To drive home the point - Japan, has the broadest distribution of wealth in the first world.
---By which you mean everybody is relatively poor. Such statistics have little bearing on people's real lives in this country.
By which I mean everybody is relatively rich. Obviously you have never been to Japan. You'd think you were in disney land it so clean and safe. Things do cost more there, as they do just about everywhere - in addition to high rents, they are also remote.
For per capita income: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo...
For distribution of wealth see these eye popping figures: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo...
Alone among 'major' economies (meaning in excess of one trillion dollars GNP) Japan's distribution of wealth is equal to that we normally associate with only Scandinavian countries - which of course are all smaller countries. What happens when companies have tenure is that it alters bargaining power in favor of the employees.
---Without independent unions, the workers have no bargaining power at all.
How can you say that? You think that broad distribution of wealth comes from the goodness of the corporations heart?
It also forces the company to have to put employee interest before everyone else. In both Japan and the United States, the ostensible corporate governance rule is "shareholder primacy" - meaning shareholders come first. But in the U.S. the way that rule works is "executive primacy". In Japan, because of Tenure, it means Employee primacy. In Japan, because of the Tenure system, the interest of the Employees come first.
---Arrant nonsense. The interests of the company's owners and managers always come first, everywhere. Japan is no "workers' paradise."
You are starting to remind me of the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" no-nothings. The problem of corporations is ownership is fractured so there is a void. So that means, in the US, executives come first - they fill the void. In Japan Employees interest comes first. Is it a workers paradise? No, they still have to work and they work in very competitive companies so that means there's lots of pressure. Japan is not a perfect society. I'm saying for failing industries adopt some of the ideas that work well over there. There's up to 8 independent car companies there for half the market. If Subaru fails, then they fail, and their is no government bailout because they are not TOO big to fail.
I've seen J.P. Morgan investment banker on TV complaining about this very thing. You see, the Business class says Japan is Socialist. Union apparatchiniks say it's fascist. Obviously either each party doesn't understand how it works, or they have an entrenched interest in the status quo. I know one thing, offer anyone, that has a decent job, tenure, and none of them will say no. They;ll all take it. Tenure says you can quit if you want, but you can't be fired.
Business is just like sports: if you don't adapt to a superior competitive strategy you'll soon be out of a job. If both the workers and the executives in the auto industry have your no-nothing attitude, they'll soon have no jobs. Japanese people aren't complaining. They hope Americans don't adapt - because then they'll take over our auto industry. I'm not sure who the enemy is anymore, the Japanese or mindsets like yours that don't want to adapt.
This explains the difference in corporate behavior between Toyota and say Ford or GM. Toyota has to plan for long term competitiveness because it has to provide jobs 20 year in the future for it's employees. So it was researching hybrids in the 1990s as a hedge that it might, might become a market driver in the future. Contrast that in the US. The average CEO last only 4 years on the job. He has short term horizon. At the same time Toyota was blowing money on hybrids Ford was announcing it was focusing all development on Trucks. For decades the Business establishment said that Japan would have to move to a 'hire and fire' model that the U.S. used. Well it turns out to be wrong.
---Yeah, because, due to a demographically-driven labor shortage, they don't have enough workers. A salient fact you neglect to mention.
uhm, you just got done telling me that they have no bargaining power - now you are telling me they have a labor shortage. I'm sorry but a labor shortage creates the very definition of bargaining power. In fact if there's a labor shortage, you don't need a union to get a good wage and good working conditions. The theory of the union is to artificially create a labor shortage through a worker cartel to gain bargaining advantage.
---And Japan can afford to take a long view because they are protected by their government, as U.S. industry is not. Maybe we should shut our markets to them, as they have repeatedly shut theirs to us, hm?
Your talking about protectionism which means industrial policy. I'm not against protectionism, per se - in fact we or I should say Alexander Hamilton invented it and practiced it until around 1912. You can read about that right here:
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-His...
By the way that book was written by a Korean developmental economist who teaches at Cambridge - he's real familiar with Japan's policies and how Korea did many similar things to develop their economy and he traces all the ideas back to policies first written up by Alexander Hamilton
What would I do (for the auto industry)? I would introduce widespread tenure, I would make sure that two members of the board of directors represented workers interest - one for all workers (union and non-union alike) and the other for union workers. I would make separate car companies out of each division at GM, Ford and perhaps Chrysler. I would then protect the those companies during re-organization period of up to 15 years. During those 15 years I would also provide loan guarantees to all loans made to those companies for capital improvements (with suitable regulation so we don't have another subprime mess). I would then confederate the auto unions. A confederated center would exist that was mainly responsible for lobbying to the government and for providing information and education to local unions (information like what union workers in other countries are doing) etc... The local unions would give and receive information, and money for lobbying efforts, which is very, very important. But at that point they don't need a federated union. With tenure, and board representation and unions, the workers would then have more than enough power to get what they want.
In regard to owning homes, there's a reason for that. Japan is an island country the size of Montana with 127 million people living on it - more over 70% of the country is too mountainess to live on. The cost of owning enough land in such an environment to have a home with a back and front yard is rediculous. Also, the dream of owning your own home is largely an Anglo-saxon cultural phenomina. Not that other countries don't have that - but for many, including Germany and Japan, the whole 'own your own home' is not part of their culture. In many cases they do own their own condo. Living is much more vertical and that's expensive. Also, Japanese tend to have much less debt than Americans.
----Industrialization is largely a Western, not just "Anglo-Saxon" phenomenon, like home ownership, which seems to have caught on in all industrialized societies. Japanese corporations just don't pay enough for most people to own even a large apartment, let alone a house of any size.
Well, Industrialization is not just a western phenomina anymore. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, combined those nations populations are almost as big as the U.S. and Canada. Home ownership as a goal is not tied to industrialization. The goal in Anglo-Saxon society pre-dates industrialization. The desire to be 'landed gentry' or 'gentleman farmers' has been the goal of English since after plagues ravaged london in the 1300s. On top of that, English didn't have to worry about defense, as they weren't prone to invasion. So the desire to live alone was increased. Calvinism also contributed to individualism too.
Home ownership has not caught on in all countries, especially to the extent as it is in Anglo-saxon countries. The history of detachment in Anglo-saxon world is not duplicated else where. People in Europe, and especially in the far east have lived on top of each other for a long time. In Europe this had more to do with defence. People lived in a small village and commuted to the fields. So even in agricultural areas the life style was high density. In rice growing regions of the world the relationship is different still. In pre-industrial times, Rice cultivation is labor intensive and it can't be done as efficiently individually as it can be done collectively - so even though there was private ownership of land, the work was often done collectively - irrigating fields, planting the rice in paddies, etc...
Germany is a western nation. home ownership isn't that important to Germans - not like it is to Anglo-Saxons. I've actually read that recently at this site or maybe it was daily kos. But it makes sense. I am working in Korea now. Korea is even more crowded than Japan. Land is extremely expensive, there for most new housing is verticle and because of that it's capital intensive. There is just no way around the land shortage - all housing is expensive.
Japan does have unions, company unions, as you said. In the U.S. that doesn't work because the corporation still has bargaining power advantage. So in the U.S. you have industry wide unions. But that model has created managment-union oligopoly that is inherently uncompetitive.
---More nonsense. Unions are hardly partners in the management or profits of industry in this country. And Japanese company unions are not real unions, and they have no bargaining power.
No, unions have a lock on labor for entire industries. One union, the UAW controls labor for three companies (plus a bunch in other industries such as aerospace). In the guilded age - workers were at a disadvantage because the corporation was organizationally an ownership collective was bigger than the worker. Post World War II, as far as the automobile industry, the Union was bigger organizationally than the Corporation - because one union represented workers in several companies. That's an oligopoly. Other's would call it a labor cartel. But what ever you call it is an arrangement. In essence they had too much bargaining power. But the executives went along with it - because they are only around for 5 years (10 at the outside) then they are off to the riveria.
When the Janesville plant was closing down I saw one guy being interviewed, he said he made $120,000 a year. My eyes popped out. That's more than I've ever made and I have a doctorate in law, 20 years experience in designing manufacturing systems and a bachelor degree in economic geography. I am not against an employee making that kind of money. I think they all should and would if wages kept up with increases in productivity which it hasn't since 1980. But compared to most working people, and I am friends with several tradesmen that kind of money is vastly beyond what they hope to make as electricians or plumbers or mechanics (again in unions).
So to me it looks like the union is a partner in the industry and in the profits. They bargain for managerial practices on the plant floor.
Whether or not Japanese unions are 'real unions' doesn't matter. The median wage for a worker in Japan is higher than it is here. For some reason you seem to think that Japanese companies just give out high wages out of the goodness of their hearts and for some reason American's don't. Workers have bargaining power in their place of work because they have tenure AND a union (albeit company).
Just because the structure is different than it is here, doesn't mean it doesn't work. And it doesn't mean it doesn't work better than here. Once an employee has tenure he has bargaining power. Why - because if the company is being mismanaged he can speak up and not get fired. If he's in a company union everyone can speak up and not get fired. NOW THATS BARGAINING POWER.
In America they get high wages, but they still get treated like crap because they can still get laid off. Tenure changes everything
Don't close your mind to this. The idea might save our industry. We might start exporting cars again.
That's how they used to talk in the US during the Depression Era.
In response to US CEOs who claim that Japanese-style job tenure wouldn't work here...the much-imitated Toyota Production System (TPS), also known as 'lean manufacturing', is based on it. Taiichi Ohno, Toyota's legendary chief engineer from the 1960s, developed it in response to Toyota's shift to lifetime employment. It treats employees as fixed costs, much like equipment (only without depreciation). Since the employees are there whether you use them or not, they need to be deployed in innovative ways.
Most people have the impression that Japanese automaking is highly automated...in reality, most tasks are done by the workers, apart from things requiring levels of precision beyond human ability, like robot welding. This also results in each worker doing a variety of tasks, reducing the mind-deadening boredom of assembly line work found in conventional automotive production systems.
Here, it's all about lining the CEO's pockets. Even Henry Ford, wingnut though he was, treated his employees better than most corporations do today.
(I used to be an industrial & manufacturing engineer, but got tired of building weapons, so now I'm a graphic designer.)
BTW, Toyota (along with other manufacturers) have have tens of thousands of immigrants doing labor for a fraction of what citizens make. Now those folks are the first to lose their jobs... and get to go back home.
The real estate bubble was dealt with, in many cases, companies sitting on properties they bought at inflated prices. The recession will last until the mortgages are paid off, or nearly so. We're coming up on year 20 for many of those mortgages. So I would suspect gradual easing until the 30 year mark.