Leo W. Gerard

Richard McCormack

Q&A

Leo W. Gerard: Richard, when you appeared recently at Youngstown State University as a guest of the Center for Working-Class Lecture Series, you talked about how essential manufacturing is to the U.S. economy and how politicians seem clueless about that. In fact, you said, “Politicians don’t get it.” When did that happen because clearly politicians in the 1950s understood that a solid economy rests on manufacturing products of real value?

Richard McCormack:  It happened imperceptibly over the past three decades, but perhaps the defining (though little observed) event was when Wal-Mart overtook General Motors as the country’s largest employer. When that happened, the retail industry became one of the most powerful political entities in the country, replacing the manufacturing industry.

The crossover from GM to Wal-Mart is important because retail started setting the terms of the debate not only with politicians, but also with manufacturers. Retailers are driven by increasing profits by pennies on the dollar by paying workers low wages with no benefits and buying cheap imports.

The loss of the manufacturing sector’s political influence also occurred with the rise of the finance sector, which became the dominant force in political gift-giving. The Wall Street financial sector does not give one-half hoot about American jobs.

The loss of America’s industrial capability also coincided with the persistent selling of economic ideology to the American public and its politicians that the country would be a lot more prosperous getting rid of crappy manufacturing jobs and creating jobs in the service and “knowledge” sectors. That grand experiment in creating a “post-industrial economy” just suffered a monumental collapse.

Americans have allowed the big corporate multinational companies and their agents to take control of their political system. It remains to this day a system that is stacked against American workers and American taxpayers. Americans have not entered the fight to save American jobs. I wonder if the middle class is drugged up on Britney Spears, Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods; addicted to sugar, salt and fat; fake “news” shows on television; and Prozac to deal with depression and lull them into thinking that their condition is beyond control. Something is stopping Americans from getting off their couches and demanding a voice in America’s economic future. Americans have lost their country to a few people who make a lot of money off outsourcing, off-shoring and importing everything Americans used to make and continue to buy. Americans must take their country back before it is too late.

Gerard: You have written about this problem in the book, “Manufacturing A Better Future for America,” and elsewhere. How do we make politicians understand how vital manufacturing is?

 McCormack: Politicians need to be hit over their heads with a baseball bat as forcefully as is possible, with Americans insisting that they at least acknowledge that a country that doesn’t make what is consumes is going to fail. It is a simple concept. There are many historical precedents of countries and empires failingafter having lost their productive capacity. It is an ancient concept: a country that does not have industry cannot support an army. 

The United States has just gone through a period of unprecedented loss of wealth. Its citizens have taken a collective economic step down. Yet politicians are sitting smug in the belief that they can borrow more money. They work in Washington, D.C., where I live. This place is humming. Most of them have no idea what the country looks like. Have they been to Detroit, Saginaw, Youngstown – America’s heartland? America’s heartland is dead. That means its heart has stopped beating. What happens to a person when their heart stops beating?

The financial meltdown wasn’t caused by the housing bubble or the financial bubble or the dot-com bubble, although all of those things contributed. It was caused by the simple fact that American consumers have sent all of their wealth to China, Korea, Japan, Germany and Mexico buying all of the things they once made. Tell that to the politicians. They don’t get it. They don’t get it and they don’t get it, which means they have to be hit over the head and be hit over the head and be hit over the head as hard as is possible to hit them with the simple message, over and again: the country cannot survive if it sends all of its wealth offshore. The country has to produce what it consumes. Our politicians do not understand this basic FACT. Have they looked at why China is becoming a superpower? It’s not because China exports its sports heroes and pop culture. It’s because China has embraced manufacturing as THE means to economic superiority. It is the same path the United States took to reach global dominance. Inexplicably, the United States abandoned that path.

Gerard: In Youngstown, you quoted Ralph E. Gomory, the retired IBM senior vice president for Science and Technology and a winner of the Heinz Award for Technology, the Economy and Employment, as saying the interests of American corporations have diverged from the interests of America, yet politicians act as if they’re still the same. Can you explain what that means both in terms of the economy and employment?

McCormack: Ralph Gomory has made one of the most profound and important observations on the current global economic situation. He says that outsourcing is not free trade. Yet the federal government still represents the interests of the powerful companies that are firing millions of American workers and shifting those jobs offshore. 

Domestic manufacturers have told me repeatedly that the greatest protectionists in our country are the corporate and financial companies that are doing everything in their power to protect their assets in China. To influence policy in their favor, the multinationals, retailers, importers and foreign producers fund think tanks, trade associations, lobbyists, lawyers and public relations firms. These are the real protectionists, not American businessmen who want to save American jobs and the American middle class.

The U.S. government continues to craft policies that are beneficial for companies that outsource jobs. For instance, the U.S. government refuses to confront China over its currency manipulation because the companies that benefit most from China’s undervalued currency are the American companies that have shifted their production there. Who does the U.S. government represent? The tens of millions of American workers who get the ax due to China’s blatant cheating, or the few CEOs at multinational companies and the financial class who make more and more money?

It was no coincidence that the stock market had its best year ever in 2009 – the same year millions of Americans were losing their jobs. The dynamic still hasn’t changed, despite the financial sector’s meltdown: Every time a company announces American worker layoffs, its stock price goes up. Yet policymakers equate the stock market with a healthy economy. They are as wrong on that as they are on the belief that the world is flat.

Gerard:  You have also said that politicians’ decision to implement the concept of free trade – which is not fair trade – has largely contributed to the nation’s problems. Would you talk about how something as positive-sounding as free trade devastated American industry?

McCormack:  A friend of mine works at the Commerce Department. He says that free trade is a farce. The United States has tariffs of 2 percent or 3 percent on incoming products. Yet the United States trades with countries with tariffs that are 10 times higher. Is that free trade? He has a simple solution to the U.S. trade crisis: hold up a mirror to any nation trading with the United States. Whatever their tariffs are on U.S. products entering their country, that is what the U.S. tariff should be on their products entering America. 

How can U.S. producers compete when they must pay for all of the costs that foreign producers don’t have to add to the price of their product? These costs include things like scrubbers and baghouses on coal plants. Not requiring the generation of clean power is a Chinese subsidy offered to all manufacturers setting up shop in China. It is an unfair subsidy that U.S. companies cannot counter without the U.S. government saying that it is unfair. Even worse, 75 percent of the mercury pollution in the United States can be attributed to Asian coal-fired plants that do not have emissions controls. The majority of these plants are located in China. China is poisoning America. If it was happening in the United States, the federal government would take the American utility or industrial company to court and impose fines of millions of dollars. What does the U.S. government do about China’s toxic emissions drifting over U.S. airspace? Nothing.

U.S. manufacturers have to abide by a thousand EPA rules and OSHA standards. Not so in China. That is a huge advantage. The United States government lets American companies that have set up shop in China get away with not having to abide by American standards – even though their products are being sold in the United States.

It is morally wrong.

Any foreign product sold in the United States should be required to be produced under the same conditions as is required for producers of the same product in the United States. If these requirements are not going to be enforced on overseas competitors, as they are here so vigorously by our federal government, then those cost advantages should be calculated and tacked onto the price of the product entering the United States.

Foreign producers should NOT have this unfair advantage. It is an outrage that the United States has allowed this to occur.

It is time for the country to stop listening to importers, their agents in Washington, including foreign governments, retailers and the financial industry. The U.S. government has to start representing the interest of American manufacturers, workers and business owners. It does not now. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is reality.

Gerard: In the chapter you wrote for the book, “Manufacturing A Better Future for America,” you said something that every American should find frightening. You said that when Congress cuts the taxes of individuals or gives them tax rebates in an attempt to stimulate the economy, the actual effect is to create jobs in foreign countries. Can you explain that?

McCormack: The U.S. government has just spent the past 10 years trying DESPERATELY to stimulate the U.S. economy, with trillion-dollar tax cuts, tax giveaways, low interest rates and even two wars that have lasted for nine years. Then the Democrats took office in 2009 and enacted their own $787 billion “stimulus.” Every time Americans have had a few extra bucks in their pocket (from tax cuts to direct government payments to home equity loans) they have spent that money on products that are now made somewhere else in the world. Is it any wonder why China’s economy was growing by 10 percent per year during the past 10 years, as U.S. consumers shipped more and more of their hard-earned dollars there to buy everything? 

Gerard: You have been critical of the second economic stimulus bill – called a jobs bill – that Congress is now talking about. You contend that the proposed bill won’t create new jobs. Here’s what you actually said, “I don’t see any jobs there. I just see more money being spent.” What’s wrong with that bill?

McCormack:  It is more of the same. Only a very small percentage of the bill encourages investment in U.S. production. There is not a single program aimed at countering the incentives that foreign countries are providing their companies and U.S. producers to set up operations in their country. The United States has to start competing – to start countering those incentives with its own incentives to manufacturing companies. It doesn’t matter if these companies are American companies or foreign companies. To create lasting, decent jobs, the United States needs global companies to open production in the United States to serve the U.S. market.

Small American companies do not need a $30-billion tax cut to hire workers. They need CUSTOMERS. They won’t hire a soul unless they have a customer to sell them a product. Yet the country continues to lose manufacturing plants to China.

Gerard: If you could actually get Congress to listen to you, what would you tell them is necessary to create good new jobs?

McCormick: Ask the 50 economic development officers from each of the states to form a U.S. Economic Development Council. These people and their offices know what is being planned in terms of company expansions. Give them a war chest, some of the TARP money or funding from the proposed “jobs” bill, and tell them to deploy the same tactics they use in their states to attract industry to America. All of the states are competing against each other to attract industrial investment. They should be working together, especially since supply chains cross state borders.

Gerard: When I go to Washington, what I hear is that we don’t need manufacturing. That’s old and dirty. So many politicians say the U.S. can move to a financial and service economy. You disagree with that. Why?

McCormick: I hear it too, though a little less often, thank goodness.  This argument is what has led to the demise of the United States. People are just starting to realize that as manufacturing goes offshore, high-end jobs in design and research and development go with it. When a plant closes, the supply chain disappears. This supply chain includes materials and parts producers, software providers, like CAD (computer-aided design), ERP (enterprise resource planning) and dozens of other high-tech equipment providers, machine tool companies, maintenance, accounting, packaging – the list goes on to include such things as the local restaurants, janitorial services and those dependent on the plant’s tax revenues, like librarians, county clerks, police officers and teachers. These are service jobs, all of which depend on manufacturing. One manufacturing job supports 15 other jobs. No other category of job has such a high multiplier. The United State must do whatever it can to start creating manufacturing jobs.

Gerard: We are losing at the international trade game with imports far exceeding exports and creating a massive trade deficit. Is it over for the U.S., or can Washington actually do something to reverse this situation?

McCormick: The game is not over. Not yet. But the country is perilously close to a period of sustained pain caused by continuing huge trade and budget deficits. The United States is assuming greater and greater debt. The country cannot borrow its way to prosperity. At some point very soon, the United States has to stop accumulating debt and start the process of paying it down. The only way to do this is by producing the products Americans consume – like cellphones, televisions, digital cameras, computers, semiconductors, printed circuit boards, autos, steel, household items, appliances, luggage, clothes – everything – and to start producing a new generation of radical and revolutionary products that the rest of the world needs to buy.

***

Richard McCormack is editor and publisher of Manufacturing & Technology News, a publication he created in 1994. It is read by industry executives, government officials and academics on five continents. McCormack has reported on science and technology, industry and government in Washington, D.C. for 26 years specializing in economic competitiveness and globalization. He has won numerous journalism awards for investigative, analytical and interpretative reporting. He is author of the book, “Lean Machines: Learning from the Leaders of the Next Industrial Revolution.” And he is the editor of the new book, “Manufacturing A Better Future for America,” for which he wrote the first chapter, “The Plight of American Manufacturing.”

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
USW International President 

In Columbus Ohio, a 5-year-old girl jumped onto Santa’s lap last month and asked if he could give her dad a job as an elf.

Mike Smith, who works the Santa station at the Polaris Fashion Place in Columbus, asked why, the Wall Street Journal reported. The little girl in the Dora-the-Explorer sweat shirt responded:

“Because my daddy’s out of work, and we’re about to lose our house.”

Happy Holidays America.

The gift this country needs most this holiday season is an economy built on a solid foundation, one that will provide middle class, family-supporting jobs now and into the future.

That present would not be another version of Monopoly for Wall Street wannabees. It would not be Barbie-goes-to-the-mall-credit-cards for youngsters in families already maxed out on their plastic and their mortgages.

The metaphorical gift our economy could really use is an Erector set – a strong steel construction kit from which the intrepid manufacture airplanes, automobiles, robots on motorized tracks, backhoes, helicopters, skyscrapers, cranes, even working Ferris wheels. 

That’s because, most of all, this economy needs manufacturing. Enthralled by the glitz, glamour and bogus bonuses of Wall Street, we’ve allowed multinationals to export our grit and grimy factories overseas. Factories that made clothing, sports shoes, large appliances, tire, glass and so much more in big and small U.S. towns and transferred to China and Indonesia and India, lured not just by cheap labor, but also by lavish government subsidies and absent environmental regulations. 

Manufacturing, the basis of any strong economy, has continuously declined as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product since its World War II peak, when it was 28.3 percent. Its new low is less than half of that — 12 percent.

Here’s the most obvious difference between an economy based on manufacturing and one based on Wall Street: You can hold the handlebars of Harley-Davidson in your hands, but just try grasping a derivative.

The paper traders on Wall Street bundle mortgages into exotic financial instruments called derivatives, sell those, buy pseudo-insurance to secure them, then engage in legal betting on whether the “instruments” will soar or fail. This kind of activity caused the financial collapse in 2008. Frankly, beyond being incredibly risky, these transactions don’t create true wealth; they just generate big bonuses. 

In manufacturing, an entrepreneur takes raw material and adds energy, ingenuity, tools and labor to create a product – like steel. That has real value and can be sold on the market to someone who needs it to combine with other materials to make finished merchandise like motorcycles or refrigerators. And those manufactured items are durable and valuable. 

In the process of manufacturing, many people are employed – to get the raw materials, whether it’s limestone or iron or trees, to transport it to a factory, to generate electricity to run the factory, to transform the raw material at the factory, to deliver the product to the buyer, to pave the roads and build the bridges and repair the railroads necessary for all that transportation, to design the highways and factories and overpasses, to feed all the workers lunch.

Tragically, the Great Recession caused by Wall Street has hit manufacturing hard. While unemployment is at a 25-year high of 10 percent, the unemployment in manufacturing has run a couple of percentage points higher than that. More than 2.1 million manufacturing workers have been thrown out of their jobs since the recession began in December 2007. 

These workers are the parents of children in Dora-the-Explorer sweat shirts who are asking Santa for elf jobs.

These are the workers who have cut back on doctor visits or medical treatments – although almost half are suffering from depression or anxiety, a New York Times/CBS poll of unemployed adults showed. 

These are the workers who told the pollsters that the frustration and stress of unemployment has provoked conflicts and arguments with family and friends.

These are the workers who have lost their homes or have been threatened with eviction or foreclosure, who have difficulty paying bills and have resorted to borrowing money from friends and relatives. These are the workers profiled by Anne Hull of the Washington Post in a story that began by describing desperate laid off Warren, Ohio residents in a pawn shop:

“At campaign time, they are celebrated as the people who built America. Now they just want to know how much they can get for a wedding band.”

These are workers selling their precious keepsakes to survive 15 percent unemployment in an area along the Mahoning River that once was the world’s fifth-largest steel producer – until it lost 50,000 of those family-supporting manufacturing jobs and another 11,500 middle-class jobs at the Lordstown General Motors plant all in a decade.

These workers could be holding good, steady factory jobs if the United States had implemented a manufacturing strategy, the way China, Japan, Germany, even The Netherlands did long ago.

Just last week, the Obama administration offered a gift to all those who believe in manufacturing. It is that strategy for America. Its formal name is the White House Plan to Revitalize American Manufacturing.

For that five year old girl in the Dora the Explorer sweat shirt. For her furloughed father and her family. For the future of this country, let’s give ourselves the gift of a future constructed on a solid economic foundation. Let’s implement that plan to revitalize American manufacturing immediately. Millions of unemployed workers can’t wait.

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
USW International President

In New York, the oldest and snobbiest financial and advising ventures are called “white shoe” firms.

This, they say, arose from the days when their hoity-toity employees wore white bucks to work. 

These days, white shoe firms bear names notorious outside New York, like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. That’s because their arrogance, risky investments and confounding dealing in derivatives caused last fall’s Wall Street meltdown, slaughtered white shoe firms like Lehman Brothers, froze credit nationwide, and threw the rest of us into the Great Recession. 

Now unemployment is up to 9.8 percent, a 26-year high. Banks repossessed 88,000 homes in September and filed foreclosure notices on another 344,000, according to RealtyTrac. Suicide hotlines report increases in calls, and a study released in July by researchers at several universities including the University of California documented the connection between unemployment, suicide and murder. Each percent increase in unemployment raised suicide rates by .8 percent and homicide rates by .8 percent, the research team found.

There’s blood on those white bucks. But the guys wearing them don’t seem to notice.

When bankers’ backs were up against the wall, the taxpayers of the United States bailed them out to the tune of $700 billion. Some, like Bank of America, took the welfare then repaid that generosity by doling out billions in bonuses. BofA got $45 billion from taxpayers, then gave $3.6 billion in bonuses to Merrill Lynch workers, just as BofA bought Merrill — which lost $25 billion in 2008. 

Banksters always argue that they must pay massive bonuses to reward and retain their best and brightest. Yet the best and brightest had managed to undermine Wall Street and lose $100 billion at the nine firms that received government welfare in 2008.  Realistically, finding lower-cost replacements for them shouldn’t be a problem since lots of unemployed bankers are pounding New York streets. The New York City Office of Management and Budget determined that Wall Street banks cut 30,000 jobs in 2008.

Still, Wall Street continues to reward incompetence. Morgan Stanley, for example, increased the proportion of its revenues to be paid as compensation and benefits – to total a whopping $6 billion by September — despite three straight losing quarters this year. This is how the London Telegraph characterized the decision in an Oct. 21 story:

“Investment bank Morgan Stanley has more than doubled the share of revenues it will hand out in pay and bonuses to its 62,000-strong army of bankers and brokers despite a 91 pc drop in profits last quarter.”

Right now, they’d each get $96,774, but Morgan Stanley has another quarter to add to that pool of pay.

Investment house Goldman Sachs has set aside $11.4 billion so far for compensation, setting a pace for an average Goldman worker to get $773,000. That would more than double last year’s earnings for the average Goldie.

Contrast that with the U.S. Census report that the typical worker nationwide lost $1,860 for a reduced wage of $50,303. Or compare it to the experience of the woman in the Oct. 21 New York Times story who competed with 500 other applicants for one $13-an-hour clerk job opening at an Indiana trucking company.

When America’s median income workers paid to bail out those white shoe swells, they thought something would change. “There is some failure in the finance industry to appreciate the level of public antagonism toward whatever Wall Street symbolizes,” Orin Kramer, a Democratic fund-raiser who is a partner in an investment firm, told the New York Times’ David D. Kirkpatrick earlier this month.

Dr. Daniel E. Fass, who was chairing a Democratic fundraising event with Kramer, told the Times’ Kirpatrick, “The investment community feels very put-upon. They feel there is no reason why they shouldn’t earn $1 million to $200 million a year, and they don’t want to be held responsible for the global financial meltdown.”

And, indeed, they’re acting like it never happened. JPMorgan Chase & Co. went out this year and made billions doing exactly what caused the crash last year – trading like crazy in derivatives. 

So a parent figure had to step in. The Obama Administration acted this week. The Federal Reserve announced it would crack down on pay packages at the nation’s 28 largest banking companies in ways intended to discourage risky practices. And the Treasury Department announced that it will order pay cuts and perk limitations for top officials at the firms still on welfare. They are Citigroup, Bank of America, American International Group, General Motors, Chrysler and the automakers’ financing agencies.

This new lifestyle will be devastating for some of those on welfare. Their perks could be limited to $25,000 – only half of a typical American worker’s annual salary. And the cash portion of their salaries could be slashed by 90 percent and replaced by stock that cannot be sold for years. The point is to align their personal interests to the firm’s long-term financial health.  It is an attempt to discourage risky investments that seemed profitable for the purpose of immediate bonus payments but later exploded like the AIG derivatives scandal. 

The white shoe crowd, failing to understand that the president was trying to help them clean up the mess at their feet, immediately started whining and complaining. It just wouldn’t work, they said, because pay-pinched executives would run to firms unrestricted by the government. That’s all for the good because, again, there are 30,000 Wall Streeters searching for jobs.

The pay restrictions will set a proper tone. Perhaps Wall Street will hear it before, as the New York Times described it, “populist animosity toward Wall Street and corporate America” grows too great.

If that happened, the blood on their white bucks might be their own.

Peter Navarro and Leo Gerard

Leo W. Gerard: Your chapter in the new book, “Benchmarking the Advantages Foreign Nationals Provide their Manufacturers,” describes in devastating detail how China in particular, but also other major U.S. trading partners, violate international rules. The abuses you document make clear that it’s impossible for American manufactures to compete internationally. U.S. corporations responded by off-shoring manufacturing and millions of American jobs. Why does the U.S. put up with this unfair trade?

Peter Navarro: The Bush administration put up with unfair trade because it was distracted by the war on terrorism and because of its blind ideological commitment to free trade, regardless of the unfair trading practices adopted by our trading partners. The Obama administration is putting up with unfair trade with China because it is under the mistaken notion that it’s more important for China to keep financing our budget and trade deficits than for this country to crack down on unfair Chinese trade practices so that we can restore our manufacturing base. Consumers — oblivious to the destruction that the Chinese have done to our job base — have put up with this unfair trade because in the short run they get cheap Chinese goods. The National Association of Manufacturers puts up with this unfair trade because many of its members have offshored their production to China and now find it in their interests to oppose trade reform. What is critical in the politics of this whole situation is that the American people clearly understand how unfair trade practices translate into fewer jobs and lower wages and a bleak future. Only when the American people see the chessboard more clearly will our politicians act appropriately.

Gerard: The result of decades of losses is, as you put, the “hollowing out” of the U.S. economy. It depressed wages, lowered the standard of living, created recession conditions in the Midwest – even before the current great recession. Typically, in the mainstream media, the loss of industry routinely is blamed on unions seeking what we believe is decent wages and benefits. Your chapter provides a shockingly different story. Why don’t we hear that?

Navarro: Labor unions have become a common “whipping boy” for the recessionary ills that have afflicted the US economy off and on for several decades now. One problem is that much of the financial press has a strong, antiunion bias. A second problem is the far too parochial nature of American politics. Far too many Americans — and I include many members of the American press corps here as well — simply don’t understand some of the complexities of the global economic environment that have helped trigger the US recession. The case of Chinese currency manipulation is a perfect example. Very few politicians or pundits — much less the American people — understand how China pegs the yuan to the dollar and how an undervalued yuan acts as a subsidy to Chinese exports to the United States and a tax on US exports to China. Nor do these politicians and pundits understand how this currency manipulation affects the stock market or interest rates or the rate of off shoring. Because the effects of globalization are complex, labor unions make an easy target.

Gerard:  For those unfamiliar, because it isn’t covered much, would you explain how China can be both a mercantilist and a protectionist state, and the effect of that economic behavior on the U.S.?

Navarro:  In thinking about the issue of trade reform, it is important to distinguish between mercantilism and protectionism. A mercantilist state uses tools like illegal export subsidies and currency manipulation to increase its level of exports to other nations at the expense of jobs and income in those nations. In contrast, a protectionist state uses unfair trade practices like quotas, forced technology transfer, and regulatory barriers to prevent foreign competitors from entering its markets. As a practical matter, any state that engages in protectionism likely also is a mercantilist as well. In the world arena today, China is the reigning Emperor of both mercantilist and protectionist practices. The scope of what this “beggar thy neighbor” country does in direct violation of the World Trade Organization rules is breathtaking, and it is precisely these mercantilist and protectionist practices that I outline in my chapter in the book.

Gerard:  Can we talk for a minute about currency manipulation because this is something you hear a lot, but, again, it’s rarely explained. You provide great descriptions in the chapter of why China’s undervaluing the yuan “makes exports cheap and imports dear,” as you put it. Can you give us a primer here?

Navarro:  As a practical matter, any given country can choose between a fixed or a floating exchange rate system for its currency. In a floating exchange rate system, the value of the country’s currency is determined by supply and demand conditions in the international market. Currencies that float and trade freely everyday include the dollar, the euro, the yen, and the Swiss franc.

In fact, floating exchange rates represent a crucial element of any free trade regime that benefits all nations. The reason is that floating exchange rates act as a natural market mechanism to prevent any trade imbalances between countries. If one country like the United States runs a trade deficit with another country like China, the value of its currency should fall relative to the other currency. A falling currency will boost that country’s exports because its exports will be cheaper to sell while it will reduce its imports, because imports will become more expensive. In this way, the trade will come back into balance in a floating exchange rate system.

The problem is that some countries like China embrace the alternative of a fixed exchange rate system. In China’s case, it tightly pegs the value of the yuan to the US dollar. This means that no matter how big the US-Chinese trade imbalance, the dollar can’t fall relative to the yuan and bring trade back into balance. 

China pegs the yuan to the dollar in a very complex process, but in a simplified example you can think of it this way. American consumers go into Wal-Mart and buy a bunch of cheap Chinese goods with American dollars, and these dollars are exported over to China. Ordinarily, the surplus dollars would put downward pressure on the value of the dollar relative to the yuan. However, to reduce these pressures the Chinese government sweeps up these dollars in a “sterilization” process which involves selling bonds to Chinese citizens at interest rates of a little more than 4%. China then turns around and uses these sterilized dollars to buy US government bonds at interest rates of less than 2% — thereby losing a considerable amount of money on the deal. The Chinese government is willing to incur these losses, however, because by buying US government bonds, it bids the value of the dollar back up so that China can maintain its dollar-yuan peg. At the same time, China’s purchase of US government securities also helps lower US interest and mortgage rates — a kind of financial heroin that makes America feel good even as China steals its jobs and destroys its manufacturing base using this currency manipulation as a weapon.

Gerard:  I think that after the Olympics were held in China, a lot of people became aware of the high level of pollution there. So while American companies must pay decent wages and control pollution, Chinese companies don’t. But you detail much more insidious internationally illegal competitive advantages China has over the U.S. One of those is forced technology transfer. Can you describe that?

Navarro:  While currency manipulation and China’s high levels of illegal export subsidies rank as two of its most important mercantilist practices, China’s forced technology transfer represents one of its most insidious protectionist practices. The idea of forced technology transfer is that if a company like General Motors and General Electric or Intel wants to set up production facilities in China and sail into the Chinese market, it must surrender some of its technology to the Chinese in order to do this. This practice is, of course, one of the most blatant violations of the World Trade Organization. However, American corporate executives rarely challenge this practice because they are all too eager to play in the Chinese market. Over time, however, the practice of forced technology transfer in China is a one-way ticket to the destruction of the American technology base. If in the short run, American corporations surrender their technologies to China, eventually, over the longer run, China won’t need these American corporations, and they will be quite ironically run out of China by their own evolved technologies.

Gerard:  You describe virtually all of these practices as being illegal under international treaties or World Trade Organization rules. People who are so hot for free trade must know that China is violating these rules. Is it correct to say that the U.S. simply is not demanding enforcement of the regulations to its own detriment?

Navarro: That is absolutely correct — the US government has failed abysmally at using the tools at its disposal to crack down on Chinese mercantilism and protectionism. The Bush administration failed to do so because of its preoccupation with the war on terror and its misguided ideology. The Obama administration is even more culpable because it fully understands the damage that China is doing to the American economy. However, the President, the Treasury Secretary, and the United States Secretary of State have all decided that it’s more important that China continue to finance our budget and trade deficits than it is to challenge China on trade reform. The problem with this strategy is that it guarantees the long run secular decline of the American economy, which will come as an inevitable result of a further erosion of America’s already weakened manufacturing base.

 ***

Peter Navarro is a best-selling author and CNBC contributor. His most recent book is “Always a Winner: Finding Your Competitive Advantage in and Up and Down Economy.” Mr. Navarro is also the author of the worldwide bestseller, “The Coming China Wars,” and the bestselling investment book, “If It Rains in Brazil, Buy Starbucks.” He also wrote the management book, “The Well-Timed Strategy.” With a Ph.D in economics from Harvard, Mr. Navarro is a business professor at the Merage School of Business at the University of California, Irvine. He is an expert in macroeconomic analysis of the business environment and financial markets. He has been featured on “60 Minutes,” and his articles have appeared in publications such as “Business Week,” “The New York Times,” and “The Wall Street Journal.”

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele appears to be suffering philosophical identity confusion, you know, like some people experience sexual identity confusion.

He’s got an organization named United STEELE Workers Union, white hardhat emblem and all, collecting members for him on Facebook. It had 255 worldwide as of June 19.

This is disconcerting on so many levels, least of which is that I head the original, authentic United Steelworkers Union (USW). It has, by the way, 1.2 million retired and active members in North America.

Far more importantly, Steele historically has expressed hostility toward unions. When President Obama agreed to help General Motors restructure in bankruptcy, for example, Steele said it was “another handout to the union cronies who helped bankroll his presidential campaign.” Now that there’s a union created in his own image, if Steele slams labor organizations, is he criticizing himself? Has he become a “union crony?”

Steele can perch that white hard hat atop his head, but he’s going to have to labor at learning some hard philosophical lessons before becoming a real steelworker, a true union man.

A union brother or sister knows it’s all for one and one for all. Our union brothers and sisters don’t see themselves as “ownership society” islands. That’s because they know when the sun stops shining, it’s nice to have union siblings to help clean up after the hurricane.

To join, Steele must learn that a union man has his brother’s back; he doesn’t stab him in the back. This may be a tough lesson for the Republican. Consider, for example, what Mark Bergeron, the STEELE Worker Union Facebook group administrator, says on his blog about the party’s 2008 nominee for president:

“How far to the left do we as Conservatives go to satisfy some of our Moderate ( Liberal ) Republicans? What sacrifices will we make to the Moderates? Abortion? Illegal Immiration [sic], a little more Socialism? Less Fiscal Responsibility? My point is that we have already made concessions to these softies and we got John McCain.”

In addition to insulting McCain, that smacks of exclusion. It is the Republican Party wringing itself out, shedding diversity at the insistence of its most conservative, self-appointed, over-amplified leader, Rush Limbaugh. So it has been reduced to little more than wealthy white protestant males — and wannabes. A union, by contrast, is a collective. By nature, then, it is inclusive. This may be a tough one for Steele to accept, considering he refused to stand up to Limbaugh earlier this year when the talk show host insisted he, not Steele, headed the Republican Party.

The STEELE Worker Union Facebook site says the group is interested in organizing. That’s a great first step in the correct direction. An important function of an international union, like the United Steelworkers, is to help employees at individual workplaces organize their local unions. Those efforts in recent years, however, have been thwarted by corporate campaigns of intimidation against union organizers and sympathizers. This is documented in a study called, “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organization,” released in May by Cornell University professor, Kate Bronfenbrenner.

Bronfenbrenner, who has researched labor issues for a quarter century, documents employers obstructing unionization by firing union organizers, threatening to close down the shop, cutting wages and benefits, and forcing workers to meet one-on-one with supervisors who interrogate them to determine whether they support the union. Bronfenbrenner found employers conducted these coercive tactics, many of which are illegal, in the run-up to union elections more frequently than in the past to dissuade workers from voting for unionization.

The upshot is that organizers and union sympathizers risk their livelihoods and corporations are increasingly killing unions. The Employee Free Choice Act now before Congress would significantly reduce that. It would allow workers — rather than the employer — to decide how to form the union. It would give workers the right to choose whether to form their union by collecting signatures from a majority of the workers or by conducting a secret ballot election. The threat-filled period before balloting could be eliminated, if the workers wanted.

The United Steelworkers union actively and vociferously supports the Employee Free Choice Act. If Michael Steele wants to be a real union man, he must do so as well. I will be waiting to hear from him. If I do, I will be glad to take him under my wing and mentor him. I will make him an Associate Member of the real United Steelworkers union. We will embrace him. Of course, I will warn my male members to be careful not to actually hug him because this is a guy, so touchy about unions, that he even used the word “crazy” to describe civil unions.

Roger Bybee

By Roger Bybee
Milwaukee Freelance Writer

As rescue attempts go, the Obama administration and its Auto Task Force are pursuing a peculiar course: They seem intent on keeping General Motors and Chrysler afloat as corporate entities by tossing more U.S. workers overboard.

Even as unemployment rates soar in longtime GM-centered communities hit by shutdowns, such as Janesville, Wis. (14.7 percent), and Flint, Mich. (15.3 percent), Obama and his task force pressed GM and Chrysler for more cuts. GM plans to shut down at least 14 factories and discard some 21,000 workers. Chrysler is closing eight U.S. plants, though it claims that somehow its merger with Fiat will result in a new increase of 5,000 jobs. In a telling observation that carried unsettling echoes of Bill Clinton’s push for NAFTA, the New York Times called the job cuts and other worker sacrifices “steps that most analysts thought could never be pushed through by a Democratic president allied with organized labor.”

The most recent version of GM’s recovery plan-closely tailored to the demands of the task force-calls for a stunning 98 percent increase in autos produced in Mexico, China, South Korea and Japan for the U.S. market. In May, the United Auto Workers (UAW) and United Steelworkers launched a 36-city campaign to prevent GM “from importing small cars from China, a move that would have increased GM’s profits while very likely reducing the number of domestic automobile jobs,” the New York Times reported June 2. This last-minute drive was successful, but it’s still unclear exactly what modifications GM will make.

For its part, Chrysler announced May 1 (the day after it filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy) the closing of its Kenosha, Wis., engine plant and the transfer of many of the plant’s 850 jobs to Mexico. As recently as the day before, top Obama administration and Chrysler officials had assured Wisconsin legislators that the Kenosha plant would be preserved. Faced with a firestorm of protest for using federal dollars to transfer jobs to Mexico, Chrysler now says that Fiat will consider keeping the plant open.

On top of all that, job losses will balloon with the closing of more than 1,100 GM and 789 Chrysler dealerships, eliminating tens of thousands more jobs.

Although Obama hasn’t ordered auto industry cuts himself, “the revamping of the nation’s largest car company is being guided by the administration’s auto-industry task force, and it follows the president’s calls for a leaner, healthier industry,” DowJones.com reported on May 12. The Obama administration’s downsizing of the auto industry, established as a precondition for approximately $30.5 billion extended thus far in loans to GM and Chrysler (with another $20 billion in the pipeline), sharply contrasts with the lightly-conditioned, larger bailout of Wall Street. Nomi Prins, author of It Takes a Pillage, a forthcoming book on the Wall Street meltdown and its roots in Washington, estimated that Wall Street has received $12.5 trillion-nearly 400 times more-in loans, loan guarantees and taxpayer subsidies for the sale of risky loans.

Contradictory policies

Only three of the Auto Task Force’s members were notably pro-labor, despite protests from labor and auto-state lawmakers. “The Auto Task Force members are basically red-pencil types who looked at saving the auto industry on the cheap without much consideration to social costs, let alone generating green alternative jobs for auto,” says economist and author William K. Tabb. “They have the narrowest business criteria for auto, unlike the banks that got capital and loan guarantees worth trillions. So their focus was to save the auto companies but not the auto workers.” Essentially, Obama and the task force wanted a quick and cheap solution to the Big Three’s ailing finances rather than providing an endless flow of resources, as the government did to the “too-big-to-fail” financial sector.

Bizarrely, the Auto Task Force’s policy direction dramatically undercuts Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus program. “The problem with GM’s new Washington-mandated restructuring plan is that it steps on the gas in the wrong direction,” UC Berkeley professor Harley Shaiken told NPR’s “Marketplace.” “The stimulus package spends $800 billion to create jobs, while billions in loans to GM are conditioned on eliminating them.”

In addition to the factory job and dealership cuts, GM will unload its Pontiac, Saturn and Hummer brands. By contrast, the Italian government provided $1.7 billion in aid to Fiat as long as Italian plants stay open, noted Robert L. Borosage of the progressive coalition Campaign for America’s Future. Also, France loaned $8.5 billion to its big three automakers, in exchange for pledges to keep jobs in France.

Labor advocates fight back

After months of the UAW trying to avoid a fight with Obama, in early May it began openly challenging the use of taxpayer loan money to finance the outsourcing of jobs. “We believe (GM) should have an obligation to build in this country the vehicles it will be selling in the U.S. market, thereby maintaining the maximum number of jobs in the United States,” UAW legislative director Alan Reuther wrote to the Senate.

Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich blasted the notion of paying billions of taxpayer dollars to keep companies afloat while they cut tens of thousands of jobs and wages. “We’re transferring money from taxpayers to Big Three shareholders for no apparent reason other than the Big Three are headquartered in America,” he said. “Why should taxpayers foot any of this bill unless the Big Three agree to keep their workers employed while they try to turn themselves around?”

The full answer to that question remains unanswered at this moment, as the two corporations’ plans for future outsourcing are unavailable. But significantly, the Auto Task Force didn’t explicitly require that federal assistance be directed to renewing production in the United States. Furthermore, following conventional management wisdom, “the Obama administration structured the GM and Chrysler plans to lessen the union’s voice in management,” the New York Times stated.

But so far, the mainstream media hasn’t much noticed or criticized the contradictions between Obama’s plans to simultaneously stimulate job growth and shrink GM and Chrysler. With all the attention on unwarranted Wall Street bonuses, major media lump Wall Street brokers’ compensation and CEO pay with autoworkers wages as part of the same culture of “excess.” Reports that autoworkers were paid as much as $73 an hour quickly spread through the media.

Actually, the typical wage is $26 to $28 an hour, plus an additional $10 or so in benefits, according to the Center for Automotive Research. UAW’s agreement to accept a new starting wage of $14.20 an hour with vastly reduced benefits received little attention. Neither did the fact that UAW-represented plants ranked “very favorably” on quality and productivity compared to Japanese “transplants” in the United States, according to independent industry assessments.

Shielded by a lack of accurate and coherent media analysis, the Auto Task Force used a narrow and conventional single-firm turnaraound framework to create a strategy for GM and Chrysler. “A hedge fund wants to make money fast for its client-in this case, the taxpayer-without regard to social cost,” Shaiken says. “Unlike most clients, however, the taxpayer picks up the social cost. Longer unemployment lines and more foreclosures are devastating for the victims, not cheap for the rest of us.”

But the Auto Task Force seemed largely oblivious to the human costs of eliminating thousands of U.S. auto jobs. Obama and his task force withheld billions of dollars in new loans requested by GM until after the company came up with a more aggressive program of job cuts, plant closing and outsourcing. The Auto Task Force rapidly divorced the reinvigoration of GM and Chrysler from a longer-term shift to a fuel-efficient economy and production not just of high-mileage cars, but also of mass-transit equipment for buses and high-speed rail.

Ironically, GM’s ruthless downsizing of its U.S. workforce and outsourcing of jobs over the last 25 years diminished its leverage with the Obama team. GM has discarded 85 percent of its domestic production since 1990-and that was before it hit the current recession and the resultant nosedive in sales. It was no longer “too big to fail.”

So Obama and the Auto Task Force felt free to promote a recovery strategy for the two ailing auto firms that stands in appalling contrast to the generosity shown Wall Street. GM and Chrysler headquarters will remain intact, but thousands of U.S. workers will be vaporized, retiree health benefits could be put on the chopping block (especially at Chrysler) and numerous industrial communities will suffer permanent damage. And the Obama team has forfeited the opportunity to recast the current crisis into a fuel-efficient re-industrialization of America-right when the country needs the stimulus of  high-wage green jobs the most.

***

• First published in In These Times. To subscribe, click here.

***

Roger Bybee is a Milwaukee-based freelance writer and progressive publicity consultant whose work has appeared in numerous national publications and websites.

Seth Freed Wessler

By Seth Freed Wessler
Researcher at the Applied Research Center

When General Motors filed for bankruptcy on Monday, it left behind a long trail of grievers– twenty-one thousand of them. The loss of these good, union jobs and the many more that will be shed when related businesses close are devastating families and communities. For Black workers, who are highly concentrated in the auto industry, these have long been some of the few reliable jobs that pay living wages, supplying families of color the with the possibility of entering the middle class.

As we now know, high levels of unionization equate with smaller income gaps between people of color and whites. But in the economy we’ve inherited from the last three decades of deregulation and declining union density, people of color are increasingly relegated to low-wage, precarious work that pays too little to support a family. Unless Congress acts now to ensure that work actually pays, these workers will have few options and we’ll only deepen the racial income and wealth divides.

A few months ago, I traveled to Michigan to interview dozens of people for “Race and Recession,” a new report released by the Applied Research Center. I met Leo Shipman, a 24-year-old Black man, who had recently lost his job in an auto parts factory in Detroit. “My biggest worry is my son,” he said about his 3-year-old. “You don’t know how you’re going to feed them. He doesn’t know the bills are running up, but I do.” When I met Shipman, he was on the edge of being evicted from his apartment.

With only a high school education–Shipman’s been trying to enroll in a technical college–securing a living-wage job proves elusive if not impossible. Because he had been underemployed, Shipman had no unemployment check coming in. It’s growing more likely that his only option will be to work a job that makes feeding his son a daily struggle.

As one of the last strongholds of union jobs shrinks, and people like Shipman are cast out, it’s time to confront some tough truths about work in our country. Black workers like Shipman have been hit especially hard by layoffs and closures because their concentration in the auto industry is higher than their overall share of the state’s labor market. In fact, across the labor market, workers of color are overrepresented in occupations with high unemployment rates. These include jobs in the service sector, as well as construction and transportation occupations. The loss of these auto industry jobs strikes a massive blow to the ability of workers, especially Black workers, to earn middle-class incomes, to save enough to pass on to their children and to achieve some financial stability. Indeed, the UAW was one of the first unions to organize Black workers and the implosion of GM further dismantles one of the mainstays of the Black middle class.

The collateral damage of job loss are taking their toll. Sandra Hines, a 55 year old Detroit native who I wrote about last week, lost the home her family owned for 40 years after her sister was laid off from GM and was forced refinance. The family was sold a predatory loan with an adjustable rate and was evicted after payments skyrocketed. As more people lose their jobs, more families will find themselves unable to pay their mortgages and more wealth will be drained. It is now clear that the perils of this situation go beyond these communities. Indeed, as we find in “Race and Recession,” the racially discriminatory predatory lending and foreclosure crisis was a central factor in pushing the economy into this recession.

As a country, we’re reckoning with the fall-out from decades of putting profit above people. As precious union jobs disappear, the time has come to ensure that those who are unemployed–disproportionately people of color–are able to enter employment that actually pays. Congress should immediately pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) so that workers can demand fair pay without intimidation. Since UAW now has a major ownership stake in the company, the workers who remain there will be taken care of, but the 21,000 workers who are getting pushed out will be less likely to find jobs with sufficient salaries and benefits, especially as the federal minimum wage increase to $7.25 next month still does not approximate a living wage.

Ultimately, as we recover from this recession, we need to make sure that the jobs we create and the economy we build help those who have been most hurt by the recession, which have disproportionately been families of color. Ensuring that good, sustainable jobs go to communities of color across the country is an essential part of building an inclusive and working economy.

***

Check out arc.org/recession to learn about how racial inequity rigged the economy and how to change the rules.

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

The economic structure of Jim Henson’s cartoon realm called Fraggle Rock reflects our own. In one HBO episode, the industrious, hard-hatted Doozers prepare to leave the rock, which would have quickly left the Fraggles starving. Somehow, politicians and powerbrokers in this country don’t see the simple parallel. If the U.S. continues to send its manufacturing overseas — with the latest proposal General Motors plants — the result will be hungry U.S. families.

I saw this up close and personal as I toured the U.S. last week on the 11-state, 32-city “Keep it Made in America” bus tour. I talked to unemployed manufacturing workers who are desperate. Through no fault of their own, they’ve lost their jobs, their homes, their health care. These are the people who are the strength of America, who in better times volunteered in New York City after 9-11 and in New Orleans after Katrina. Now, they’re forced to get groceries at their union hall’s food bank. They’re humiliated.

This economic crisis was inflicted on them by recklessness on Wall Street and in Washington. Over the past 40 years, politicians have eroded regulations that could have helped prevent the sub-prime mortgage bubble and bust. And Wall Street banks and investors took full advantages of that rule-free environment to behave capriciously in the market, causing stocks to tank, driving unemployment up to the current 8.9 percent, and contributing to the loss of 5.2 million manufacturing jobs since 2000.

Let me introduce you to four Steelworkers, four hard-hats struck down by the decisions so disastrous to the economy made in Washington and on Wall Street. They are Diana Arends, an aluminum can maker; Matt Dossett, a rubber worker; Andy Nirschl, a papermaker, and Kevin Vest, a copper miner.

Diana Arends’ employer, Ball Corp., shuttered its Kansas City aluminum beer can manufacturing plant March 27. Ball blamed the economy when it announced the closure that cost 150 Steelworkers their jobs. Beer sales are down. As the economy contracted, Americans had fewer coins in their pockets for every little pleasure, including throwing a few back.

Diana Arends

The plant closure was both an economic and emotional shock to Arends. She’s divorced, and supports a daughter and granddaughter. Before the plant mothballing, she routinely worked 12-hour days, with the overtime paying her mortgage and bills. Now she’s only getting unemployment.

Her house in Lees Summit, Mo., on which she has paid for 10 years, already is going to foreclosure. She doesn’t have any credit cards, but she does owe on a used car she bought a couple of years ago.

When she heard the plant was to shut, she immediately dropped her internet and cable TV services, ended trash collection and stopped eating out. She buys food in bulk at a wholesale store. But it’s just not enough.

She’s thinking about taking the remnants of her stock market-ravaged 401K and using it to support herself, her daughter and granddaughter because she has been unable to find another job. No one has called her back for a second interview, although she also has 28 years experience manufacturing grain bins for CTB, Inc. Let’s face it, she points out, who’s going to hire a 59-year-old?

She recollects, a few years ago, “I got to feeling set. I had a 401K and just a few more years to retire.” But now she’s jobless, and soon she may be homeless. “I did nothing to deserve that,” protests Arends, who went the extra mile, serving as president of USW Local 13, a position she loves, but one she’ll be forced to relinquish May 14 because she no longer is employed as a Steelworker.

Diana Arends is concerned about running up federal debt to pay for the bank bailouts and stimulus package, so she doesn’t understand anyone proposing to use one dollar of that money overseas. The stimulus is American tax dollars designated to create American jobs – not Chinese jobs or Korean jobs or Mexican jobs. So when General Motors submitted a bail out plan in which it would get American tax dollars, then use them to build fewer cars here and more cars overseas that would be sent back here to be sold, Arends just couldn’t believe it. “These are middle class jobs lost, the people who go to the grocery store and support food banks and the Little League,” she noted.

And they’re not just GM assembly line jobs. The more jobs GM sends overseas, the more support and supply jobs go overseas too. And that threatens the economic lives of millions more Americans — workers like Matt Dossett.

Matt Dossett

He’s a rubber worker from Fancy Farm, Ky., furloughed with 50 other Steelworkers from the Goodyear Tire plant in Union City on Feb. 28. Dossett, 27, who tried to get a job at the plant since he graduated from high school, had worked there just a year before the lay off. He knew it was a good job because his father and uncles had all worked there. “They had their whole careers there,” he said, “They worked 40 years and retired there. They had good lives from working there. It is one of the best paying jobs in this area.”

He worked on a balance crew in the curing department – cooking tread onto the tires, a place where it could get well over 100 degrees in the summer. Still, he longs for that call back, “I really enjoyed it down there. I enjoyed the people I worked with and the job I was doing,” he said.

But that’s all jeopardized by the sagging economy, unfair trade practices by China in supporting its tire makers which export to the U.S. and GM’s plan to move production offshore – including to China.

When he was working, Dossett paid off his car loans and saved money just in case he got furloughed. But making the mortgage payments is starting to get tough. His wife works, so that’s helping them pay the bills. And they’ve cut out all frills. They don’t visit her family in Chicago anymore. They don’t go out to eat. They don’t visit Nashville for weekends. Dossett has a credit card, but no debt because he only uses it in emergencies. “I worked hard for everything I’ve got,” he explained, “I’m trying not to lose it all now.”

He sees a clear connection between GM building cars here and his job.  Because billions of American tax dollars have already gone into bailing out GM, they shouldn’t be talking about moving jobs overseas, he says. “We gave them money to build here, to create jobs here. Let the Chinese pay if they want a plant in China,” he said.

Like Dossett, Andy Nirschl worked for an industry damaged by unfair trade. He was a process operator, controlling pulp, for the NewPage Corp. Kimberly mill in Wisconsin. It made the kind of glossy paper used in magazines and new car catalogues. The mill had operated in the town of 5,000 since 1889 and was the largest employer. Kimberly was NewPage’s largest producer, but the Ohio corporation closed it after a defeat in a trade case with China under the Bush administration.

Andy Nirschl

That was Sept. 30, 2008. Nirschl, president of USW Local 2-9, knows all the gory details: 475 Steelworkers lost their jobs, and 125 salaried guys got thrown out of theirs. When NewPage refused to sell or re-open the plant, the town considered renaming its high school teams. They are called the papermakers.

Nirschl’s wife, who had worked at home, had to switch jobs so the family could get health insurance. He’d married late in life, so he had a good start paying off his mortgage. He isn’t behind yet but knows lots of fellow Steelworkers who are. He has only one credit card and no debt on it or on his cars, so he’s in better shape than many of his friends. Still, his family has cut out vacations and eating at restaurants.

Nirschl got a new job earlier this month, a good union job with the state helping the unemployed find work. It doesn’t pay as much as the mill did but has good benefits. The pay comes from the $700 billion stimulus package, and he’s hoping the position is renewed in the state’s next budget year in June.

He says he hopes Congress gets on board to save the American auto industry. He says his friends understand that to have a strong, solid economy, America must manufacture. It’s not clear to them why politicians are willing to back struggling banks with billions but balk at supporting industry.

Like Nirschl, Kevin Vest talks about a cycle of industrial life. It’s obvious to him. The haul truck driver furloughed with 600 fellow Steelworkers Feb. 13 from Freeport McMoRan’s Chino mine in New Mexico, where they extracted copper and molybdenum, a steel hardener, offers this story:

He read in a newspaper about a $100 million wind farm to be built near his daughter’s house in Arizona. The 30 wind turbines are to be manufactured by a company from India and the huge towers are to be constructed in Mexico. Vest wants to know why GE can’t make those turbines. If the American company did the work, they’d probably buy the copper wire for the turbines from an American company. And that company might buy the ore to make the wire from his mine – or some other downed U.S. copper mine, putting some Steelworker back to work. If there’s one cent of tax breaks or stimulus money in this wind farm, then it’s doubly outrageous to employ Indian and Mexican workers.

For the same reason, Vest always buys American cars. There’s copper wire in engines and molybdenum (molly) in other steel car parts. Buying that car keeps him employed, but also fellow Americans who make the glass and axles and all the other parts.

And he’s got news for people who deride the quality of American cars. He’s owned a series of them and driven them more than 150,000 miles with no problems. Now he has a 1997 Chevy Silverado with 160,000 miles on it that he’s planning to drive 1,400 miles to Iowa to visit relatives. His father has owned nothing but American cars, and when his brother bought a Nissan, told him to park it down the street. “When I got out of the service,” Vest said, “my dad tried a Toyota Celica GT. . . He looked at me and said he felt bad to have even test driven it. He bought a Ford Ranger pick up.”

At 54, Vest is without health insurance and behind on his credit card payments. He owes $2,000, and the collector is hounding him. He is hoping to get a job at a mine in Arizona, close to where his daughter lives. But that may not be possible until copper prices rise.

Workers like Vest, Nirschl, Dossett, Arends and me are taking the message to Washington D.C. this week for a teach-in to explain how crucial manufacturing is to the economy of this country and how essential manufacturing is to construction of automobiles in this country, not just the final product, but also all those products leading up to the final car — from glass for windshields to glossy paper for brochures. We are going to try to explain that 7.2 million paychecks are dependent on U.S. autos, including health care, education, service and other jobs, so that the politicians and policy makers understand clearly that the very idea that General Motors would ask for taxpayer dollars to ship more car manufacturing overseas – and then import the cars – is an insult and an affront to American workers – as well as an economic threat to the country. We are not going to allow American manufacturing to starve for support. But that support cannot go to pay for manufacturing overseas, or ever more American families will end up stretched like Arends, Dossett, Nirschl and Vest.

Robert Borosage

By Robert L. Borosage
Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

Is the Obama Administration saving General Motors or is it saving auto industry jobs in the US? Is it saving GM as an American brand or GM as an American manufacturer?

These aren’t academic questions. General Motors, which has been buttressed by $15.2 billion in loans from taxpayers with more to come, has been circulating a plan for its recovery which envisions it doubling the number of cars that it builds in China, Korea and Mexico and sells in the US. According to the UAW analysis, GM projects opening the equivalent of four plants abroad to build cars for the US market, while closing more than that here at home.

Labor costs in those countries are far lower. While paying a U.S. autoworker with benefits cost about $54 an hour (before the massive concessions), a South Korean worker earns about $22 an hour, a Mexican worker earns less than $10 an hour and some Chinese workers can earn as little as $3 an hour. This may make sense for GM’s bottom line, but it makes no sense for American taxpayers.

Although GM is an American brand, it is a global manufacturer. What’s good for GM is no longer necessarily good for America.

This isn’t the first time the administration’s efforts to rescue the US economy have run into the reality of globalization. The furor over the bonuses paid to AIG executives distracted from the real scandal: that $93 billion in taxpayer money was funneled not simply to Goldman Sachs, which is bad enough, but to a parade of Europe’s leading banks — Germany’s Deutsche Bank, France’s Societe Generale, UK’s Barclays. No explanation was made on why US taxpayers had to pick up the entire tab.

Knowing that the US can’t afford to lift the entire global economy, Obama went to the G-20 meetings intent on getting Europeans to adopt bold deficit-financed recovery plans like that of the US. But, led by the Germans, the Europeans pretty much stiffed the president they so admire. That left the US to do the lifting, and rack up the debts, dangerously weakening the recovery effort.

Saving good jobs in America can’t be done simply by rescuing GM or Chrysler. The Europeans get this. The Italians provided $1.7 billion in aid to Fiat, on the condition that the plants stay open in Italy. France loaned $8.5 billion to its big three automakers, but again with pledges to retain jobs in France.

The US, however, is the champion and the protector of the global market. Americans have served as the consumers of last resort for the world. We’ve largely spurned industrial policy — other than that associated with the military industrial complex, agribusiness and finance. We’ve followed — from Reagan to Rubin — a high dollar policy that made imported goods a bargain and US exports expensive. We’ve allowed our global corporations and banks to define our trade policy, while borrowing $2 billion a day to cover record trade deficits. As William Greider summarizes, we’ve assumed that aiding multinationals in the global economy served the national interest. “That is how America became a debtor nation with its steadily weakening industrial base and stagnant wages. That condition became the predicate that led to financial crisis.”

Now those days are over. Our trading partners must be put on notice that the old order isn’t coming back. The US can no longer afford to borrow unsustainable amounts to buy stuff made abroad with the jobs our companies have moved there. We need to lower the dollar and balance our trade. We need to build things in America once more.

Saving GM won’t work without broader changes. Export-led countries like Germany and China must be challenged to generate internal demand (the Chinese have done far more of this than our European allies) to help reverse the global downturn and as a first step to a new and sustainable growth model. Taxpayer dollars should be conditioned on the maintenance of good jobs here — rather than subsidize their export abroad. We should be leading, as Obama has done, global efforts to help developing nations recover and lift their own standards in the process.

Demanding that taxpayer dollars go to save jobs here will be denounced as protectionist. But it is squandering billions in public moneys on companies that then move jobs abroad that will fuel a protectionist fury.

Save General Motors or save an auto industry and jobs in America? The president and the Congress have to decide. It ain’t necessarily the same thing.

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

The proposition General Motors has presented to the United Auto Workers and American taxpayers in its latest restructuring plan is simple: You must pay for your own execution.

GM, which already took $15.4 billion in bailout money, wants another $11.6 billion and is offering in return this deal: It will close 16 of its American manufacturing plants, terminate 21,000 of its factory workers and double the cars it builds in low-wage Mexico, China and South Korea and ships back to the U.S. to sell.

There it is: GM is demanding that Americans pay to send their own jobs overseas.

In the world where corporate executives live, the one in which boards of directors grant CEOs multi-million dollar bonuses even after companies tank, maybe that’s not a perverse proposition.

But in the world where real Americans live, we’ve had enough of this crap. Decades of foolish tax and other federal policies that encouraged American manufacturing firms to throw Americans out of work and expatriate were bad enough. To expect American taxpayers to bankroll GM’s plans to layoff American workers and move their jobs overseas goes too far.

We’re taking a stand. It’s gotta stop here. The United Steelworkers (USW), the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) and the Mayors and Municipalities Automotive Coalition (MMAC) are conducting an 11-state, 32-city protest bus tour. At each stop so far, hundreds of people have cheered our message: “Keep it Made in America.” And they’ve signed our petition calling for support of a simple idea: Buy it here; build it here.      We will present the petitions at a teach-in conference in Washington, D.C. on May 19 when we will explain to elected officials why GM’s plan fails America and why they must require GM to submit a new plan supporting American jobs.

As much as for the UAW, this is a life and death struggle for the USW, American manufacturing, and for millions of Americans in good-paying jobs. Without manufacturing, America is in danger of attempting to subsist on an economy based on nothing more than amorphous derivatives, credit default swaps and Ponzi schemes. The Steelworkers represent hundreds of thousands of workers whose jobs depend on the auto industry, from steelworkers who make the steel, to the rubber workers who make the tires, to the glass workers who make the windshields, to the paper workers who make the glossy pamphlets.

Altogether, more than 7 million paychecks depend on the U.S. auto industry, including healthcare, education, service, retail and other jobs. This bus tour is about preserving those jobs, all of those jobs.

In just the past eight months of this recession, caused in huge part by recklessness on Wall Street, this country has lost 1.2 million manufacturing jobs, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. GM cannot take tax dollars to slash more. Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich agrees. Here’s what he told the Washington Post, “. . . it raises fundamental questions about the purpose of bailing out these big companies. If GM is going to do more of its production overseas, then why exactly are we saving GM?”

It’s not as if it’s impossible for a U.S. auto company to manufacture here. Ford Motor Co., which is not taking any bailout money, is investing $500 million in retooling its Michigan Truck plant outside Detroit so that it can make small cars that it will sell worldwide, including its next-generation, battery-electric Focus. And Chrysler, which is getting bailout money, has made a deal with Fiat under which the Italian car company will manufacture a small car in one of Chrysler’s U.S. assembly facilities, which, along with other long-term commitments, will eventually create 4,000 U.S. jobs.

On the first day of the bus tour, I was joined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, actor Danny Glover, the angriest mayor in the U.S., Virg Bernero of Lansing, and U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, among others.

The Rev. Jackson drew cheers as he remarked that somehow we’ve given billions to the “banksters,” yet somehow we’re still hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs and homes each month. He called for a moratorium on foreclosures and plant closings, and I’m with him.

Bernero is tired of Wall Street describing his father, a retired auto worker, as a legacy cost. His father is a human being, a senior citizen, who worked hard every day of his life and returned home exhausted from an honest day’s work. Now, however, Wall Street thinks it’s fine to reduce him to a sub-human term and cheat him out of the retirement benefits he earned.

Bernero’s father made things, real things that could be touched, held in the hand – not derivatives, not figments of the imagination that turned out to have less than no value at all.

Now Wall Street and GM must be made to understand that Main Street isn’t going to take it anymore. We’re not going to continue allowing corporate America to outsource the American dream. Bernero said it right: “This is America’s fight.”

Join us. Sign the petition. We have no intention of buying our own noose. We intend to win this fight.