I read recently that GM is closing 12 plants and cutting 30,000 jobs. Also, it appears that Toyota will surpass GM as the leading auto maker in the world in another year. Being originally from Detroit I feel rather sad that this is going to happen so soon. It is, however, an expected development. Both management and the unions are to be blamed for this.
For many years there was not much global competition in the auto industry so GM and other auto companies could name their prices. The union could also demand wages that were much higher than expected given the skill of the work involved. This is no longer the case and hasn't been since Japan became a strong competitor more than 25 years ago. Detroit responded somewhat to the challenge and the quality of work has improved over the years. It is not enough, however. The quality of U.S. cars is still not as good as many of the imports. The managements and the workers must share the blame for this. Better quality control must be put in place by management and be followed by the workers. As for the cost of making the cars, the unions must give a lot more concessions or they will lose more jobs. The management is also making way too much money. Executives in our industries, including the auto industry, make much more money than executives in other countries. If executives get bonuses when the company is doing well, then they should get huge pay cuts when the company is doing poorly. I never hear the president of GM or any other company cut their own wages or stocks when they lay off workers. They are responsible for leading the company into red ink so why are they not suffering for this. If GM loses its top position to Toyota, then the president of GM should make less money than the president of Toyota. I don't see that coming.
There is complaint from management that pension cost for retirees are hurting the company because foreign companies have less retirees. Well, that is no excuse because the money for the pensions should have been put away when the workers were stilling working. There are actuaries who can do this type of calculation. Money should have been put away years ago and not now. Good management would not have let this happen. Negotiation for wage concession and a defined contribution plan for health care should begin as soon as possible. I don't see that coming.
Beyond help from the union which is absolutely necessary, the management has to be more creative. SUVs may be making lots of money for automakers now, but I think eventually energy efficient cars will be the determining factor whether a company survive in the future. GM had the electric car years ago but is not making them anymore. Honda has a hydrogen powered car being tested now. Where is our technology? Instead of hiring lobbysts to block stricter government standard for fuel efficiency, GM and other domestic automakers should spend more money to exceed those standards before the Japanese and Europeans are able to do it. Pay for the best engineers instead of the best PR people. We have to think more long term or we will be in more trouble. Just think, China is not making many cars now but I am sure she will be. Can you imagine the competition then?
Monday, November 28, 2005
Thursday, November 17, 2005
I see that Fisher Deberry, the football coach at the Air Force Academy, apologized few weeks ago for his comments about black players being able to run faster than others. I accept his apology on behalf of Asian Americans. I guess we are the group that the coach was offending the most. I don't think that he dislike blacks since he seems to want more of them at the Air Force. Well, at least on the football team. Whenever a coach says he needs more speed on the team, I know he doesn't mean Asians. I look at a school like UCLA where about 40% of the students are Asian, and yet I think there is only one Asian on the football team. The coach of UCLA is black and most of the players at the speed positions of his team are black. So I think black people think just like white people: that blacks are faster than whites and Asians.
Seriosly, I don't think Fisher DeBerry is a racist. You can't blame someone trying to get the best players he can and thus keep his job. The trouble I have is when I see a coach ignores a small Asian kid and assumes he can't play. Dat Nguyen is a starting linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys but throughout his college and pro career people think that he is too small to be a good player. How many Asian kids were cut before they had a chance to prove themselves? If a little guy like Ichiro was born in the U.S. and didn't build a reputation in Japan, would he have made it here? You may say that if he is that good, no way would he have gone unnoticed. You may be right. But think about the quality of Japanese baseball and the number of Asian players in the majors now. Wouldn't you expect a few Asian Americans in the majors? I can't think of any. All of the Asian major league players built their reputations in Asia. We have not produced any Asian American major league players from our high schools and colleges. I don't think genetically Asian Americans are inferior to native Asians. I think if coaches encourage Asian kids more and give them more chances, you will see more Asian Americans in team sports. In individual sports like tennis, golf, and skating where there is no coach deciding who makes the team Asian Americans have fared better.
The uproar over the whole DeBerry incidence is, of course, whether a remark about black superiority in sports implies that blacks are inferior in intellectual pursuits. You can't never tell what is in the heart of the speaker but you can't criticize someone for stating something obvious. Blacks are faster. Nobody knows why this is. Does this means that since they do perform below Asians and whites academically that they are dumber? I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. There are too many factors involved to make any kind of conclusion. All I know is that like the Asian kid being ignored by a coach, it is wrong to assume that a black kid is not capable of doing academic work. Stating the obvious is not the same as making assumptions. DeBerry was only stating the obvious, he has nothing to apologize for.
Seriosly, I don't think Fisher DeBerry is a racist. You can't blame someone trying to get the best players he can and thus keep his job. The trouble I have is when I see a coach ignores a small Asian kid and assumes he can't play. Dat Nguyen is a starting linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys but throughout his college and pro career people think that he is too small to be a good player. How many Asian kids were cut before they had a chance to prove themselves? If a little guy like Ichiro was born in the U.S. and didn't build a reputation in Japan, would he have made it here? You may say that if he is that good, no way would he have gone unnoticed. You may be right. But think about the quality of Japanese baseball and the number of Asian players in the majors now. Wouldn't you expect a few Asian Americans in the majors? I can't think of any. All of the Asian major league players built their reputations in Asia. We have not produced any Asian American major league players from our high schools and colleges. I don't think genetically Asian Americans are inferior to native Asians. I think if coaches encourage Asian kids more and give them more chances, you will see more Asian Americans in team sports. In individual sports like tennis, golf, and skating where there is no coach deciding who makes the team Asian Americans have fared better.
The uproar over the whole DeBerry incidence is, of course, whether a remark about black superiority in sports implies that blacks are inferior in intellectual pursuits. You can't never tell what is in the heart of the speaker but you can't criticize someone for stating something obvious. Blacks are faster. Nobody knows why this is. Does this means that since they do perform below Asians and whites academically that they are dumber? I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. There are too many factors involved to make any kind of conclusion. All I know is that like the Asian kid being ignored by a coach, it is wrong to assume that a black kid is not capable of doing academic work. Stating the obvious is not the same as making assumptions. DeBerry was only stating the obvious, he has nothing to apologize for.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
More and more people in this country are coming to the conclusion that the Iraq war is a big mistake. I was against it from the very beginning. I am not proud to say that I only made my view known to some of my closest friends at first. Even though I have lived in this country for almost 40 years, I still feel that some people look at me as an Asian and not an American. After 9/11 the whole country felt the need to stand behind the flag and that anyone going against the government maybe seen as unpatriotic. As the war is dragging on, I feel more and more frustrated and wish that I have spoken out more. It wouldn't have made a difference because we were going to war anyways but I would have feel less of a coward for not saying anything. I don't have any great answers to how to get out of this war but by writing why I was against it in the beginning and what are some of the flaws of our international policies, may be we can find some answers in the future.
One reason people are angry at Bush is that he used false intelligence about Iraq's weapons program to sell the war. I felt from the beginning that Iraq did have biological and chemical weapons. I didn't think they had nuclear weapons. It really didn't matter though. To me Hussein and bin Laden were not allies. In fact they were enemies, one a secular dictator and the other a religious zealot. Hussein was always afraid of the U.S. He used biological and chemical weapons in the 80's only with the blessing of the U.S. He invaded Kuwait because he thought the U.S. wouldn't intervene. He retreated without much of a fight during the first Gulf War. He truly had WMDs back then but would not use them against the U.S. because he knew if he did he would be completely destroyed. He would never have helped bin Laden even if he had WMDs because that would have been the end of him. Why would he risk his life to help one of his enemies? So to go after him for possible terrorism in the future is absurd especially given our complicity with him in the 80's. It strikes the rest of the world as hypocritical. It also is a waste of our lives, money, and time.
Right after 9/11 we had the sympathy of most of the world. Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job there instead of going to Iraq. Maybe bin Laden would still be at large today but we wasted chances to get him and wipe out al qaeda by taking most of the resources out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. Without finishing off one enemy we created another one. Afghanistan is not secured today. Warlords and remnants of the Talibans are still around. We should have helped ensure the democracy of Afghanistan first. By doing so the world would have applauded us. The UN would have taken over much of the work in Afghanistan by now and we would be freed to attack terrorism elsewhere.
When we attacked Iraq based on the right of preemptive strike, we lost much respect in the world. This is also against our own belief that we should not attack others unless we are in immediate danger. By claiming preemptive strike as a right for a powerful country, we have scared many peaceful nations. Can China use preemptive strike against Taiwan? Sure, Taiwan isn't a real threat to China. But is Iraq really more of a threat to the U.S. than Taiwan is to China? To the Arab world this is a case of America believing that all Arabs are alike or that we are trying to use an excuse to attack Arabs.
Let us look at the big picture of terrorism. There always going to evil people in this world. How dangerous will these people be depends on how well they can recruit others to their dirty work. We can and should chase down all the bin Ladens of the world. But we will never get rid of all of them because more are born everyday. The only way we can be secure is when we can stop them from recruiting sacrificial lambs. The suicide bombers are generally not evil people to begin with. Evil people usually don't sacrifice themselves. They get others to do the sacrificing. Bin Laden will never strap bombs on himself and walk into a market and blow himself up. The suicide bombers are misguided people. Even if the U.S. is perfectly even handed in treating the Israeli-Palestinan conflict, some will be persuaded to think of the U.S. as the enemy. But now by attacking Iraq we are adding people who can be more easily persuaded. If unsophisticated suicide bombers attack us, the result would be tragic but it would not be destructive to our way of life. My fear was and still is that there are intellectuals who were moderates in the past but see this war as proof that we are trying to destroy the Muslim world. If one of this individual is a top notch scientist living among us, the danger would be much greater than sucide bombs or planes.
I don't have many answers. But I do know that overwhelming force is not the answer. Being the most powerful nation in the world means that we can last longer than anyone else. It does not mean we are secured. We cannot bomb the whole world into submission. Look at Israel. She has overwhelming military power against the Palestinians and her neighbors and yet she is not secured. Security can only come from political solutions. This does not mean we don't go after the terrorist. We should do that and use as much resources as we need to beef up our security. we have a no win situation in Iraq right now. Even if we are able to capture Zarqawi tommorrow the country will not be stalized. Our presence there will bring more and more outside insurgents regardless even if the leader is captured. Remember Zarqawi was not a great leader before we invaded Iraq. With the help of countries like Iran, there is a guarantee of insurgents as long as we stay. Sure it looks bad to leave but our staying will not be doing any good now.
One reason people are angry at Bush is that he used false intelligence about Iraq's weapons program to sell the war. I felt from the beginning that Iraq did have biological and chemical weapons. I didn't think they had nuclear weapons. It really didn't matter though. To me Hussein and bin Laden were not allies. In fact they were enemies, one a secular dictator and the other a religious zealot. Hussein was always afraid of the U.S. He used biological and chemical weapons in the 80's only with the blessing of the U.S. He invaded Kuwait because he thought the U.S. wouldn't intervene. He retreated without much of a fight during the first Gulf War. He truly had WMDs back then but would not use them against the U.S. because he knew if he did he would be completely destroyed. He would never have helped bin Laden even if he had WMDs because that would have been the end of him. Why would he risk his life to help one of his enemies? So to go after him for possible terrorism in the future is absurd especially given our complicity with him in the 80's. It strikes the rest of the world as hypocritical. It also is a waste of our lives, money, and time.
Right after 9/11 we had the sympathy of most of the world. Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job there instead of going to Iraq. Maybe bin Laden would still be at large today but we wasted chances to get him and wipe out al qaeda by taking most of the resources out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. Without finishing off one enemy we created another one. Afghanistan is not secured today. Warlords and remnants of the Talibans are still around. We should have helped ensure the democracy of Afghanistan first. By doing so the world would have applauded us. The UN would have taken over much of the work in Afghanistan by now and we would be freed to attack terrorism elsewhere.
When we attacked Iraq based on the right of preemptive strike, we lost much respect in the world. This is also against our own belief that we should not attack others unless we are in immediate danger. By claiming preemptive strike as a right for a powerful country, we have scared many peaceful nations. Can China use preemptive strike against Taiwan? Sure, Taiwan isn't a real threat to China. But is Iraq really more of a threat to the U.S. than Taiwan is to China? To the Arab world this is a case of America believing that all Arabs are alike or that we are trying to use an excuse to attack Arabs.
Let us look at the big picture of terrorism. There always going to evil people in this world. How dangerous will these people be depends on how well they can recruit others to their dirty work. We can and should chase down all the bin Ladens of the world. But we will never get rid of all of them because more are born everyday. The only way we can be secure is when we can stop them from recruiting sacrificial lambs. The suicide bombers are generally not evil people to begin with. Evil people usually don't sacrifice themselves. They get others to do the sacrificing. Bin Laden will never strap bombs on himself and walk into a market and blow himself up. The suicide bombers are misguided people. Even if the U.S. is perfectly even handed in treating the Israeli-Palestinan conflict, some will be persuaded to think of the U.S. as the enemy. But now by attacking Iraq we are adding people who can be more easily persuaded. If unsophisticated suicide bombers attack us, the result would be tragic but it would not be destructive to our way of life. My fear was and still is that there are intellectuals who were moderates in the past but see this war as proof that we are trying to destroy the Muslim world. If one of this individual is a top notch scientist living among us, the danger would be much greater than sucide bombs or planes.
I don't have many answers. But I do know that overwhelming force is not the answer. Being the most powerful nation in the world means that we can last longer than anyone else. It does not mean we are secured. We cannot bomb the whole world into submission. Look at Israel. She has overwhelming military power against the Palestinians and her neighbors and yet she is not secured. Security can only come from political solutions. This does not mean we don't go after the terrorist. We should do that and use as much resources as we need to beef up our security. we have a no win situation in Iraq right now. Even if we are able to capture Zarqawi tommorrow the country will not be stalized. Our presence there will bring more and more outside insurgents regardless even if the leader is captured. Remember Zarqawi was not a great leader before we invaded Iraq. With the help of countries like Iran, there is a guarantee of insurgents as long as we stay. Sure it looks bad to leave but our staying will not be doing any good now.