Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 03/29/2007 View Wed 03/28/2007 View Tue 03/27/2007 View Mon 03/26/2007 View Sun 03/25/2007 View Sat 03/24/2007 View Fri 03/23/2007
1
2007-03-29 China-Japan-Koreas
China to build 93,000-ton atomic-powered aircraft carrier
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymoose 2007-03-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Just the one, then? And then ten years later, another one?
Posted by gromky 2007-03-29 00:47||   2007-03-29 00:47|| Front Page Top

#2 Built on the backs of the hard working people under the whip in China; and of course your friendly neighborhood store Walmart®!
Posted by smn 2007-03-29 00:52||   2007-03-29 00:52|| Front Page Top

#3 Vari Netters claim the SU-33 is capable of carrying nuclear munitions, while others speculate the smaller CV may be designed wid an amphibious troop-carrying capability. Anyhoo, its debatable about how many NIMITZ's = CVN21's will still be around in US inventory come 2020, wid the USN-USDOD dev OFFSHORE/SEA-BASING CONCEPTS + GLOBAL STRIKE/PROMPT STRIKE.
"Reach Guam ...prompting an arms race in Northeast Asia" > Based on the timeline indic, tts gonna take awhile for the PLAN to become competent in flight operations, naval nuke reactor designs and operations, and of course gener Carrier-Task Unit/group/Force design, organz, and related proficiencies [Year 2040-50 at earliest]. I DON'T THINK MOUD = RADICAL ISLAM CAN WAIT THAT LONG - UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES, THE USA IS LIKELY TO GET STRONGER AND ENTRENCHED, NOT WEAKER AND FALLING BACK IN TIMID ISOLATIONISM. MOUD = RUSSIA-CHINA know it.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-03-29 01:04||   2007-03-29 01:04|| Front Page Top

#4 This assumes, of course, that the Chinese don't pull a French move and have an aircraft carrier that consistently drops its propeller. Also, they will have a total of 2 aircraft carriers in 2020 supposedly : which means it will be 2030 to 2040 before they are capable of actually using them in combat. And then the Chinese still have to fill those carriers with aircraft, pilots, and the assorted crews; plus, they will have to build and equip the rest of the 2 carrier battle groups, unless they want their carriers to be multi-billion dollar targets. That is where the real money comes in concerning carriers : the carrier battle groups with all the ships, aircraft, crews, and equipment.
Also, the Soviets/Russians never did successfully build a full sized carrier, and the Chinese are relying on Russian plans for a super carrier? Not a good plan.
Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-03-29 01:05||   2007-03-29 01:05|| Front Page Top

#5 Advice to Asians:

Avoid sea wars with Americans.

The Chinese ruling clique is welcome to waste as much money as they wish on such projects. I think that Taiwan will have absorbed the mainland before these IOCs, anyway ......
Posted by Verlaine 2007-03-29 01:52||   2007-03-29 01:52|| Front Page Top

#6  Built on the backs of the hard working people under the whip in China; and of course your friendly neighborhood store Walmart®!

And don't you forget it!
Wal-Mart and China

Wal-Mart buys much of its merchandise from China

Wal-Mart reports that it purchased $18 billion of goods from China in 2004.

Wal-Mart was responsible for about 1/10th of the U.S. trade deficit with China in 2005. [“U.S. Stock Investors Wary of Analyst `Yuan Plays': Taking Stock, Bloomberg, 7/1/05]

If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China’s eighth-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada. [China Business Weekly, 12/02/2004]

Many of Wal-Mart's “American Suppliers” actually manufacture most or all of their products in China

An example of an “American Supplier” is Hasbro, headquartered in Rhode Island. Today, Wal-Mart is the largest purchaser of Hasbro products—accounting for 21 percent of all Hasbro goods or more than $600 million in sales. But Hasbro reports, “We source production of substantially all of our toy products and certain of our game products through unrelated manufacturers in various Far East countries, principally China.” Hasbro specifies that “the substantial majority of our toy products are manufactured in China.” [2004 Hasbro 10-K filed with the SEC]

Wal-Mart's Chinese factory workers are treated poorly

Workers making clothing for Wal-Mart in Shenzhen, China filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in September 2005 claiming that they were not paid the legal minimum wage, not permitted to take holidays off and were forced to work overtime. They said their employer had withheld the first three months of all workers' pay, almost making them indentured servants because the company refused to pay the money if they quit. [New York Times, September 14, 2005]

Workers making toys for Wal-Mart in China’s Guangdong Province reported that they would have to meet a quota of painting 8,900 toy pieces in an eight hour shift in order to earn the stated wage of $3.45 a day. If they failed to meet that quota, the factory would only pay them $1.23 for a day’s work. [China Labor Watch, December 21, 2005]

Elsewhere workers producing goods for Wal-Mart also face appalling conditions, despite Wal-Mart’s factory inspection program

Workers from Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nicaragua and Swaziland brought a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in September 2005 asserting that the company’s codes of conduct were violated in dozens of ways. They said they were often paid less than the legal minimum wage and did not receive mandated time-and-a-half for overtime, and some said they were beaten by managers and were locked in their factories. [New York Times, September 14, 2005]

A female apparel worker in Dhaka, Bangladesh, said she was locked into the factory and did not have a day off in her first six months. She said she was told if she refused to work the required overtime, she would be fired. Another worker said her supervisor attacked her “by slapping her face so hard that her nose began bleeding simply because she was unable to meet” her “high quota.” [New York Times, September 14, 2005]

In 2004, only 8 percent of Wal-Mart inspectors’ visits to factories were unannounced, giving supervisors the chance to coach workers what to say and hide violations. Wal-Mart claimed it planned to double unannounced visits by its inspectors but that would still leave 80 percent of inspections announced. [CFO Magazine, August 2005]

A former Wal-Mart executive James Lynn has sued the company claiming he was fired because he warned the company that an inspection manager was intimidating underlings into passing Central American suppliers. Lynn documented forced pregnancy tests, 24-hour work shifts, extreme heat, pat-down searches, locked exits, and other violations of the labor laws of these Central American countries. [New York Times, July 1, 2005 and James Lynn to Odair Violim, April 28, 2002, www.nclnet.org]


they will have a total of 2 aircraft carriers in 2020 supposedly : which means it will be 2030 to 2040 before they are capable of actually using them in combat.

Great point, let's all hope that China enjoys the usual success that copycat nations obtain from their abject theft of military plans.

I think that Taiwan will have absorbed the mainland before these IOCs

Let us hope so, Verlaine. Nothing could be more fitting.



Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-03-29 02:36||   2007-03-29 02:36|| Front Page Top

#7 How'd the aircraft carrier thing turn into Walmart bashing? (confused look)
Posted by gromky 2007-03-29 03:47||   2007-03-29 03:47|| Front Page Top

#8 China's ability to build such offensive weapons relies upon our (i.e., Wal-Mart's), continued financing of their statist military-industrial complex. Any questions?
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-03-29 04:29||   2007-03-29 04:29|| Front Page Top

#9 Z: China's ability to build such offensive weapons relies upon our (i.e., Wal-Mart's), continued financing of their statist military-industrial complex. Any questions?

We'll have to agree to disagree here. Wal Mart, K Mart, and just about every American retailer out there sources mainly from China because that's where the costs are lowest, and the quality is acceptable to American consumers. If we want to make China a less attractive place to source stuff, a simple remedy is to place a 200% across-the-board tariff on Chinese-made products. That would immediately move a lot of production out of China.

The other thing to beware of is Chinese estimates. The Chinese can build roads and other relatively simple things using old technology freely licensed from the West quickly and reliably. Complicated things are another matter altogether. They can't even rip off Russian engines, of which they have working copies in their air force, and Russian designers in their employ, reliably. They believe they can make working copies of two Russian aircraft carriers. I know why they have that belief - it's because their Han Chineseness (i.e. yellowness) will overcome all obstacles. Anyone else who shares that belief has been watching too much Chinese propaganda.

Take, for instance, earth-moving equipment. China has earth-moving equipment companies. Given that, why does most of the equipment I see at construction sites in China bear names like Hyundai, Hitachi, Caterpillar, and an assortment of other developed country brand names? This stuff isn't anywhere as complicated as an aircraft carrier, and Chinese heavy industry firms have revenues in the billions of dollars a year.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-03-29 05:36|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2007-03-29 05:36|| Front Page Top

#10 Note also that the EU, which has a smaller economy than the US, is importing about the same amount of stuff (in dollar terms) from China as the US imports from China. Further, the EU doesn't have a significant Wal Mart presence.

Wal Mart's success isn't the result of imports from China. Rather, Wal Mart is successful, so it is the biggest single importer of products, from just about anywhere in the world, and the biggest buyer for many domestically-made consumer products as well. Why is Wal Mart a whipping boy? Because it started out displacing mom-and-pop stores and wiping out local elites who got rich overcharging consumers in little out-of-the-way places in flyover country. These local elites might not be talented at keeping their businesses going, but they sure are vocal. Then you get the limo liberals who wouldn't be caught dead shopping in a Wal Mart, and aren't happy that the great unwashed get to buy the same stuff that they do, but at lower prices. It's not enough to be rich - others must not be able to afford your toys.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-03-29 05:49|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2007-03-29 05:49|| Front Page Top

#11 The bigger they are, the faster they sink.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-03-29 06:08||   2007-03-29 06:08|| Front Page Top

#12 Hey, if they were not working on Wal-Mart stuff, they'd be building aircraft carriers, right?

Besides, Japanese autos are the reason American cars are as good as they are today. I owned a 1972 Camero and a 1976 Plymouth Volare.
Posted by Bobby 2007-03-29 06:31||   2007-03-29 06:31|| Front Page Top

#13 Your comments are ALMOST spot on, ZF. I agree that Walmart bashing is largely unjustified and unproductive. I especially like your comments about why limo leftists hate Walmart.

I would take issue with your tariff solution. This has NEVER worked out well for the U.S. It precipitated the Civil War and was a major factor in making the Great Depression as bad as it was.

The ONLY solution to the problem is for the American worker to wake up and realize that the standard of living and level of wages that he/she had in 1954 was the result of a unique set of economic, military, and political circumstances that NEVER existed before in the history of the world (and NEVER will again) and is NOT the birthright of every American who shows up at a job 40 hours a week.

If and when this sea change in attitude happens, and non and semiskilled labor work in a non-unionized fashion and are paid wages that are more in line with historically reasonable levels, then it will not pay for companies to offshore jobs.

Mangement has not changed, despite union propaganda to the otherwise. What has changed is that workers in the U.S. and Euroland expect to live very good lifestyles in exchange for doing work that by any historical standards doesn't justify said lifestyles.

Since there aren't any politicians in either major party who have the sack to tell this incontrovertible truth to the American public, it is unlikely that government will be the force that will bring about the attitudinal change. It will be up to the invisible hand to make this happen, which means it could happen next week or in 20 years. But happen it must.
Posted by no mo uro 2007-03-29 06:41||   2007-03-29 06:41|| Front Page Top

#14 Zhang Fei, right you are regarding China industrial "potential".

It's not enough to be rich - others must not be able to afford your toys.

How about: It's not enough to be well off, you must be rich--meaning others must not be able to afford your toys. "Rich" means compared to something, implicitly.

Redneck Jim, LOL! You don't get it! A great deal of innovation is planned. They would be submersible aircraft carriers! ;-)


Posted by twobyfour 2007-03-29 06:41||   2007-03-29 06:41|| Front Page Top

#15 The Chinese history with naval reactors does not give confidence that this carrier will ever leave port. Their SSBN has never left Chinese waters. Its missiles are a threat only to Beijing.

The Chinese ability to copy Russian technology is also suspect.
Consider the SU-30 Flankers. Russia sold licenses to both India and China. It withheld technology transfer of the AL-31 engines to China (but not to India) and shipped assembled engines to the Chinese.

The Chinese tried to copy the engines but can't. They've now bought hundreds of Al-31s. They tried to develop their own Mig-29 engine copy and that isn't going to well either. They have to buy RD-33 engines for the JC-1 planes it wants to export.

As for the Flankers themselves, the first Chinese assembled ones could not get into the air. The Russians had to send technicians to reassemble the aircraft.

Having never operated a carrier, making the jump to a nuclear one will be a challenge.
Posted by John Frum 2007-03-29 06:53||   2007-03-29 06:53|| Front Page Top

#16 Yeah, but the hafta keep up with the Mad Mullahs new infidel-crushing superweapons.
Posted by Bobby 2007-03-29 06:59||   2007-03-29 06:59|| Front Page Top

#17 Zhang Fei, I'll need to come back later in order to make a proper reply. Your reparte, as usual, is of the highest quality. Please count yourself amongst the most favorite of my peers here at Rantburg.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-03-29 08:04||   2007-03-29 08:04|| Front Page Top

#18 "A great deal of innovation is planned. They would be submersible aircraft carriers! ;-) "

That's not innovation; Japan had a bunch of those 60-some years ago.
Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore  2007-03-29 08:06||   2007-03-29 08:06|| Front Page Top

#19 Once the proposed Chinese carriers are deployed, the radius of the Chinese Navy’s range is expected to reach Guam, where a U.S. base is located.

Gotta feeling that'd be a one time, one way trip...
Posted by tu3031 2007-03-29 08:51||   2007-03-29 08:51|| Front Page Top

#20 Hey, just think of them as really, really big floating targets for the sub force.
Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H.  2007-03-29 08:54|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2007-03-29 08:54|| Front Page Top

#21 There is a reason they are called "Missile Magnets".
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2007-03-29 09:21||   2007-03-29 09:21|| Front Page Top

#22 Not to worry: Jesse Owen will show them what's what in the Beijing Olympics.
Posted by Excalibur 2007-03-29 09:24||   2007-03-29 09:24|| Front Page Top

#23 I thought part of the reason the price of Chinese goods was so low is because they dump the endless stream of [government subsidized] shipping containers at this end, passing on the cost of storing/shipping out the empty containers to their American customers?
Posted by trailing wife 2007-03-29 09:33||   2007-03-29 09:33|| Front Page Top

#24 It is,tw. Plus the majority of those containers are carried by Chinese-flagged (and 'subsidised') ships.
Posted by Pappy 2007-03-29 09:55||   2007-03-29 09:55|| Front Page Top

#25 Are they making all the other ships and subs that support and protect a carrier?

If not then this does not matter. It is just another "STONE BOAT". (snark)
Posted by 3dc 2007-03-29 09:59||   2007-03-29 09:59|| Front Page Top

#26 Reminds me of a joke I heard many years ago.

The worst thing we could do to any of our enemies is hand them a Nimitz-class carrier and watch them bankrupt themselves trying to operate the damn thing.

Carrier ops takes a culture with an emphasis on safety, willingness to analyze and correct mistakes, and ability to hand responsibility to lower-ranked sailors. Not sure the Chinese score real high on any of those accounts.
Posted by Dreadnought 2007-03-29 10:46||   2007-03-29 10:46|| Front Page Top

#27 It's one thing to build an Aircraft Carrier but it's a whole nother game to run Aircraft operations onboard an Aircraft at sea and a further step to project that force. The PLN is a larger "Costal" force but they can't operate much outside their waters. The French have had the "Chuck de Gag" carrier for years and you can count on one hand how many times it has deployed. It will be decades before they become proficient enough to project power. On a Historical note the former USSR began building Carriers just before the whole political system went kaput.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-03-29 10:46||   2007-03-29 10:46|| Front Page Top

#28 TW: I thought part of the reason the price of Chinese goods was so low is because they dump the endless stream of [government subsidized] shipping containers at this end, passing on the cost of storing/shipping out the empty containers to their American customers?

The major reason is that Chinese pay is low. (The reason I only say pay is that Chinese rents are higher than some East Asian countries with higher wages). Very low. In the bustling coastal regions, we're looking at factory wages of about $100 a month for an 9-hour day six-day week.

How are wages so low? Are they being exploited by foreigners? They're low partly because productivity is low and partly because domestic employers in non-export industries pay even less. We're looking at pay as low as $25 a month.

How do they live on so little? China is huge and sparsely-populated compared to most East Asian and European countries. Land in China is cheap. A three-bedroom condo twenty km from the town center in a relatively wealthy coastal area might cost $10,000.

Taxes are minimal for low wage workers. A worker with a $100 salary will take home $100. Meat is relatively expensive, given their salaries, but still affordable - a pound of chicken or lean pork (the Chinese staple meat) is about $1 a pound. Vegetables cost next to nothing - typical prices are about $0.15 a pound. A one-bedroom apartment on the outskirts of town costs about $12.50 a month. Power and water cost about $10 a month.

Bottom line is that these low costs are the reason that China is somewhat competitive in the export sector. Why is China competitive on these other costs? Because while it does have a number of monopolies still, it has dismantled a good many more than some of its potential competitors, like India and Pakistan. Take phone rates - why are Verizon's rates to India and Pakistan $0.31 and $0.33 respectively, whereas the rate to China is only $0.15? The two South Asian countries are simply more wedded to crony capitalism, where friends of the country's rulers get special treatment at the expense of the rest of the population.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-03-29 11:16|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2007-03-29 11:16|| Front Page Top

#29 ..They're forgetting that in order to have a USEFUL carrier, you've gota be able to defend the damn thing - that is going to take at the very least a couple of world-class missile cruisers (ideally CGNs - if not, you've got to have an efficient, robust replenishment train, something Communist navies were never very good at), DDGs, and ASW forces. Then you get to practice, practice, practice, practice and practice some more - and it had better be realistic, again something Communist miltaries are not at ALL good at.
Then they need to remember the United States Navy wrote the book on carrier warfare with the finest ships and weapons ever built, run by the best trained professional minds who ever got to play with this stuff. We figured out every possible way the Russians (outnumbering us 2-3 to one in aircraft and ships)could come after us. I guarantee the Chinese don't have the slightest clue as to what we're capable of throwing at a CVBG, especially one that will end up staying very close to shore anyways, beacuse that's a lot of firepower to leave in the hands of one captain far from the motherland.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-03-29 13:11||   2007-03-29 13:11|| Front Page Top

#30 Carrier ops takes a culture with an emphasis on safety, willingness to analyze and correct mistakes, and ability to hand responsibility to lower-ranked sailors.

Exactly right. I would add that a willingness to analyze performance and push responsibility down the chain are almost totally incompatible with any tyrrany--Communits, Fascist, Ba'athist, you name it. The only tyrrany that ever operated an aircraft carrier successfully was Imperial Japan--which did it by developing a small, elite, rigorously-trained corps of pilots and a small, elite, rigorously-trained corps of air department personnel to service the planes. The IJN had a lot of operational proficiency, but only as long as the battle went according to plan. They couldn't handle unexpected adversity very well; damage control, among other things, was a serious weakness. At Midway, the biggest loss for the IJN was not so much the pilots (most survived Midway, but got kiled off later in the Solomons) as it was the loss of the carriers themselves and the hangar crews. (Read Shattered Sword for the full explanation.) Neither was replacable quickly enough to affect the course of the war.

I suspect the Chinese will run into some of the same issues. A qualified carrier crew which is the equal of the USN will have personality traits that make them politically suspect.
Posted by Mike 2007-03-29 13:14||   2007-03-29 13:14|| Front Page Top

#31 It's not the PLN, it's the PLAN. That may end up explaining a lot of the probelm.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-03-29 13:15||   2007-03-29 13:15|| Front Page Top

#32 In response to Cyber Sarge, yes towards the end of the Soviet Union, there was an attempt to build full sized carriers. Not one full sized carrier was completed by the Soviets, and the carriers that were built fall into the Harrier carrier class. The reason that this is so important is that there has NEVER been a completed Soviet-designed full carrier, and there has NEVER been a completed shakedown cruise of said carrier. Even countries that have built carriers in the past can blow it big time : the UpChuck De Gag by the Frenchies being a prime example. Anyone with a shipyard can by brute force assemble a carrier shaped object and put it to sea; the real question is, will it actually function as a carrier? Also, the Chinese record with building Soviet equipment from purchased plans does not install confidence : the examples of the PLAAF's travails with jet engine construction given before are the most obvious. However, also reference all of the open source materials regarding the abysmal quality and workmanship on the PLA's versions of the T-54/55, PT-76, MiGs, and the like.
Moreover, the Chinese were given a 20 year technology boost by the Israelis through the transfer of the cancelled Lavi fighter plans and technology in the early 1980s. The Chinese are just now putting the J-10/Q-10 series into open production {20 years later}, and they are having to do it with purchased and licensed produced Russian jet engines - the Chinese engines are crap, and the pilots have been complaining about them. Also, the Lavi was to have been the ultimate version of the F-16 series with all sorts of major improvements; what the Chinese produce is rated between the last model of the F-5/F-20 and the first model of the F-16, basically an F-16A Light.
India, Vietnam, the Phillipines, Sri Lanka, and Japan are the countries that need to be most concerned with a Chinese carrier capability; since, excluding India, none of the others have any carriers at all. Of course, the Japanese are only restrained from having a carrier fleet by the restriction imposed after WWII, not by money, technology, or ship-building expertise.
Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-03-29 14:08||   2007-03-29 14:08|| Front Page Top

#33 Assuming that the Chinese CV is able to get underway, i agree with the various posts about trainnig and it will NOT be on a par with any US boat (except the America or Oriskany).
And on the aircraft side of things, even assuming you can get the pilots to land on the thing, simply taking a land based aircraft, sticking a tailhook on it and plunking it down on a flight deck doesn't cut it. the increased stresses of the cat shot and the trap will rip them apart. compare the basic weights of the USAF F-4 or A-7 to the USN versions and you can attribute all that increase in the navy version to structural enhancements that will allow it to live on the boat. And that doesn't begin to address the increased corrosion exposure and how that will degrade the aircraft.
Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-03-29 14:13||   2007-03-29 14:13|| Front Page Top

#34 Shieldwolf, I would think you'd add Taiwan to your list.
Posted by RJB in JC MO 2007-03-29 15:18||   2007-03-29 15:18|| Front Page Top

#35 I expect this "carrier" will spend 90% of its time in port, if it leaves at all. I still say that the best way to twist the shorts of the Chinese is to give the Japanese the old "Kitty Hawk" when she retires. They'll have three more within five years, and each will be far superior to the original. China will implode.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2007-03-29 15:42|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2007-03-29 15:42|| Front Page Top

#36  It's not the PLN, it's the PLAN

Heh. This always cracked me up. PLAN is People's Liberation Army Navy, for those not in on the joke.
Posted by SteveS 2007-03-29 18:12||   2007-03-29 18:12|| Front Page Top

#37 PLN, PLAN, CHICOMNAVY, whatever.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-03-29 18:38||   2007-03-29 18:38|| Front Page Top

#38 I'm still leery about allowing the Japanese to re-arm, Their memories are very long, in fact multi-generational, I REALLY, REALLY, DON"T want to go to war with a re-armed Japan.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-03-29 18:53||   2007-03-29 18:53|| Front Page Top

#39 Redneck Jim, LOL! You don't get it! A great deal of innovation is planned. They would be submersible aircraft carriers! ;-)

Yeah, once.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-03-29 19:01||   2007-03-29 19:01|| Front Page Top

#40 I apologize if this seems to be off-topic, but Wal-Mart represents a solid 10% of our trade deficit with communist China. This is some 12 BILLION DOLLARS or more each year being poured into communist China's coffers. Lots of that money is being converted into military weapons that threaten to destabilize the entire East Asian quadrant.

If we want to make China a less attractive place to source stuff, a simple remedy is to place a 200% across-the-board tariff on Chinese-made products. That would immediately move a lot of production out of China.

Agreed, in spades.

Why is Wal Mart a whipping boy?

Wal-Mart is a parasitic and predatory business entity. They represent the dark side of barely legal but unethical capitalistic business practices. Municipalities keen on getting a big-box store sited in their neighborhood grant them huge tax-credits and other financial incentives only to find that Wal-Mart employees are so underpaid that they become a burden on the local social services network.
A Substantial Number of Wal-Mart Associates earn far below the poverty line
· In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. [“Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?”, Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]

· A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. [“Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart’s Workforce”, Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]

Wal-Mart Associates don't earn enough to support a family
· The average two-person family (one parent and one child) needed $27,948 to meet basic needs in 2005, well above what Wal-Mart reports that its average full-time associate earns. Wal-Mart claimed that its average associate earned $9.68 an hour in 2005. That would make the average associate's annual wages $17,114. [“Basic Family Budget Calculator” online at www.epinet.org]
Wage increases would cost Wal-Mart relatively little

· Wal-Mart can cover the cost of a dollar an hour wage increase by raising prices a half penny per dollar. For instance, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee. [Analysis of Wal-Mart Annual Report 2005]

Wal-Mart forces employees to work off-the-clock
· Wal-Mart’s 2006 Annual Report reported that the company faced 57 wage and hour lawsuits. Major lawsuits have either been won or are working their way through the legal process in states such as California, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. [Wal-Mart Annual Report 2006]

· In December 2005, a California court ordered Wal-Mart to pay $172 million in damages for failing to provide meal breaks to nearly 116,000 hourly workers as required under state law. Wal-Mart appealed the case. [The New York Times, December 23, 2005]

· A Pennsylvania court, also in December 2005, approved a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. by employees in Pennsylvania who say the company pressured them to work off the clock. The class could grow to include nearly 150,000 current or former employees. [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, January 12, 2006 ]

· In Pennsylvania, the lead plaintiff alleges she worked through breaks and after quitting time — eight to 12 unpaid hours a month, on average — to meet Wal-Mart’s work demands. “One of Wal-Mart’s undisclosed secrets for its profitability is its creation and implementation of a system that encourages off-the-clock work for its hourly employees,” Dolores Hummel, who worked at a Sam’s Club in Reading from 1992-2002, charged in her suit. [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, January 12, 2006 ]

Your tax dollars pay for Wal-Mart's greed
· The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]

· One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average:
o $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
o $42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance.
o $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families.
o $100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students.
o $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP)
o $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance
.
[The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]

Wal-Mart’s corporate greed gives capitalism a major black eye. This does not even begin to address how their presence instantly dooms dozens of neighborhood mom and pop small businesses. Small businesses that are responsible for some 90% of job creation in America. They hollow out the business communities around them and foist their employees upon the local and state social services for health care, food stamps and child care.

I can count on one hand the times I’ve shopped at Wal-Mart. I’m going to do my best never to shop there ever again. They represent the very worst sort of business practices and need to be boycotted by all concerned citizens.

I'll also agree with many of the posters here that are noting just how crapulent Chinese high technology is. They make Japanese copy-catting look like pure innovation. Let's all hope that their aircraft carriers follow in that mold.

I guarantee the Chinese don't have the slightest clue as to what we're capable of throwing at a CVBG, especially one that will end up staying very close to shore anyways, beacuse that's a lot of firepower to leave in the hands of one captain far from the motherland.

A qualified carrier crew which is the equal of the USN will have personality traits that make them politically suspect.

The extremely concise observations above are, more than anything else, what will likely cripple communist China's carrier aspirations. Their's is a culture which eschews placing that much power into an independent thinker's hands. Let's all hope that this proves to be true.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-03-29 19:32||   2007-03-29 19:32|| Front Page Top

#41 Zenster, I usually am with you, but some of your posts here are a little off the mark. To wit:

"One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year.

This is a straw man argument if I ever saw one. Even if you assume this is entirely true (and considering the source I'd say it is highly suspect), this number has to be weighed against the costs of not having the store. These costs would include higher prices for goods and services at mom and pop stores that were equally without competition in the pre-Wallyworld environment, more people on public assistance who have no job at all and so place an even higher burden on the taxpayer, higher costs for hardware and other goods not only to end user consumers but also to contractors and other businesses in the area which gets built into the cost of every service in the private sector, gas costs driving to several of those mom and pop stores,etc. I can't present any exact figures but I can pretty much guarantee that those costs are much, much higher than the ones incurred assisting people working at Wallyworld.

And where does THIS:

"The average two-person family (one parent and one child)"

come from? The average TWO PERSON family????????? Why didn't they choose the more accurate phrase "single parent household"? The fact that they didn't makes the whole quote less credible. That's lawyerese, not plainspeak. Entrepreneurship is somehow morally and ethically required to cater to and promote this arrangement? Bullshit.

Look, I'm not on the same page as Walmart for everything they do. Like any business, there are areas that could be critiqued. But the whole "Walmart is Satan" thing is a bit tedious at this point. There's a lot of good in their business model and a lot of bad things in the models with which it competes. Fix the bad parts of Wallyworld and leave the good ones.


I get weepy eyed for the mom and pop stores of my youth, for any of a number of reasons, but that business model is not the predominant one, and probably won't be for most goods ever again, so we all should just get over it and move on as soon as possible.
Posted by no mo uro 2007-03-29 20:19||   2007-03-29 20:19|| Front Page Top

#42 You make some good points, no mo uro, but I take issue with this one:

higher costs for hardware and other goods not only to end user consumers but also to contractors and other businesses in the area

Businesses and especially contractors shop at wholesale distributors, not at a retail outlet (albeit a low priced one) like Wal-Mart.

While the above numbers may be incorrect, they still reflect a predatory business model and that simply is not ethical. Why does their average employee work only 29 hours a week? Simply because 30 hours or more entitles a worker to benefits. Wal-Mart is not creating viable careers for their employees. While that may be their legal right, it does not strike me as very ethical. Communities are not just built on jobs, they are built on careers. Careers that have a future and can actually support someone with a living wage. Wal-Mart falls far too short in all of these respects to deserve any credit.

By directing so much of its business to communist China, Wal-Mart assists in the hollowing out this world's industrial economy. Military hegemony aside, communist China still continues to stand as one massive violation of human rights and the less business done with them, the better.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-03-29 21:17||   2007-03-29 21:17|| Front Page Top

#43 Z: While the above numbers may be incorrect, they still reflect a predatory business model and that simply is not ethical. Why does their average employee work only 29 hours a week? Simply because 30 hours or more entitles a worker to benefits. Wal-Mart is not creating viable careers for their employees. While that may be their legal right, it does not strike me as very ethical. Communities are not just built on jobs, they are built on careers. Careers that have a future and can actually support someone with a living wage. Wal-Mart falls far too short in all of these respects to deserve any credit.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Wal Mart's business lies in providing the same kinds of things that mom and pop stores used to provide to their customers for the lowest price possible. It is not to provide a career path for its workers. How many mom-and-pop stores did that?

Lest you think that Wal Mart the giant corporation has a greater social obligation than mom-and-pop stores, let me remind you that large corporations are little more than an agglomeration of mom-and-pop businesses with a lot of management cut out. This is what economies of scale are all about. You cut out a lot of middle managers and pass the savings on to the consumer.

Providing upward mobility to all of its employees is not what retail stores are all about. Not everyone can become a manager. It's not to do with the company being mean or anything - there's just not enough spots available.

As to workers working a low average number of hours, a lot of that is workers gaming the system. But keeping the amount of money they earn below a certain threshold, they become eligible for up to $10,000 in government benefits, ranging from food stamps, housing stipends to Medicaid.

*All* workers in low-end retail (and other low-wage, low-productivity jobs) - including those in mom-and-pop stores - game the system for benefits. If you want everyone to not have to deal with this, just have the minimum wage raised to $12 an hour. The problem is that this type of wage inflation would lead simply to prices rising to keep pace. The key problem with low-end retail, as far as wage rates go, isn't that stores like Wal Mart, K Mart, Dollar General, Albertson's, et al, pay too little, but that productivity is low. And there's not a lot that can be done to raise productivity - it's inherent to low-end retailing.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-03-29 21:52|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2007-03-29 21:52|| Front Page Top

#44 I don't agree that it's a hollowing out at all.

What we are experiencing in our lifetimes is the final steps in leveling the labor industry on a planetwide scale. Finally, all laborers will be exposed to all others in competitive fashion. Nothing could be better for humanity, or for capitalism.

By shredding away barriers like lack of education and training, tariffs, and geography, a globalized, truly free (vs America in 1954) labor market lifts up the workers in squalor in 3rd world countries by providing them with greater opportunities than they would have otherwise. Simultaneously, it smashes down the greed of laborers (particularly unions) in those long-time industrial countries where they have been overpaid (on any historical basis) for the past 50 years.

Screw protectionism. It's time laborers in the West got exposed to some real competition, and to believe otherwise is the kind of nationalism (racism?) that has nothing good about it. Sorry, but it isn't the '50's any more, and it won't ever be again, no matter what the Dems and Repubs are trying to sell. Standards of living are going to have to be attenuated for many folks - the invisible hand will not be denied.

And this isn't to be taken as a condoning of everything about the Chinese. One can appreciate the forces bringing about the globalization of the labor industry and simultaneously critique China, or any other nation, for that matter, without any hypocrisy at all. I certainly have a laundry list of thing s I don't like about that regime. But 200% tariff and attacking Wallyworld isn't the anwer.
Posted by no mo uro 2007-03-29 22:04||   2007-03-29 22:04|| Front Page Top

#45 What ZF said. Every word.
Posted by no mo uro 2007-03-29 22:05||   2007-03-29 22:05|| Front Page Top

#46 Providing upward mobility to all of its employees is not what retail stores are all about.

Nowhere do I say that any enterprise is obliged to do so. I just happen to take issue with a large corporate entity like Wal-Mart that exhibits such a distinct lack of ethics. I also maintain that by doing such a vast amount of business with a nation that unfairly manipulates its currency, Wal-Mart assists China in its destruction of America's and many other nations' industrial manufacturing base. I protest this unacceptable conduct by not giving them any of my business.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-03-29 22:12||   2007-03-29 22:12|| Front Page Top

#47 Z: Wal-Mart is a parasitic and predatory business entity. They represent the dark side of barely legal but unethical capitalistic business practices. Municipalities keen on getting a big-box store sited in their neighborhood grant them huge tax-credits and other financial incentives only to find that Wal-Mart employees are so underpaid that they become a burden on the local social services network.

Wal Mart employees are certainly paid far less than carpenters and plumbers. But are they paid less than other companies selling similar products in the low-end* retail industry? That's what this laundry list of second-hand complaints hides. My impression is that the people compiling the list are engaging in distortion by means of selective disclosure. What is industry practice? Is it truly a shame that Wal Mart pays low wages? Or are Wal Mart's wages merely the industry average?

* Comparability is key. It's unfair to compare a retailer that sells nail clippers to Saks. Or Costco, which doesn't carry nail clippers and sells mainly higher-end items in bulk to more affluent customers either able to afford the cash or access credit cards that enable them to make large purchases. (These customers are buying wholesale, which isn't what Wal Mart's less affluent customers do). Or to unionized retailers. (By the way, how many mom-and-pop stores are unionized)?
Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-03-29 22:16|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2007-03-29 22:16|| Front Page Top

#48 And this isn't to be taken as a condoning of everything about the Chinese. One can appreciate the forces bringing about the globalization of the labor industry and simultaneously critique China, or any other nation, for that matter, without any hypocrisy at all.

I actually agree with you. Instead of any tariff, I'd rather see China be forced to re-evaluate its currency to it real worth. China refuses to do so and effectively becomes a criminal enterprise. The shipping container scam alone is solid evidence of China's ill intent.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-03-29 22:16||   2007-03-29 22:16|| Front Page Top

#49 I haven't even mentioned the possible skills and education gap. Could the average Wal Mart employee even get hired at Saks or Costco? All the way through the laundry lists I've seen via Google searches, I was thinking of all the factors they left out in their critiques of Wal Mart.

First off, the stuff about Chinese workers being exploited is a little problematic, because nobody forces them to work there. In addition, the wages paid by Wal Mart's suppliers are up to 4 times as high as the wages paid by domestic non-export-oriented companies.

Second, the stuff about Wal Mart exploiting workers in the US is a little disingenuous, because it's the nature of low-end retail. They are selling low-end products that require few selling skills. They are non-unionized*, which isn't a crime, the last I heard. Neither were the workers at most mom-and-pops that Wal Mart replaced. And the management positions at mom-and-pop's tended to be filled with trusted family members, so it's not as if they were a font of job advancement opportunities for stock clerks.

Third, the idea that Wal Mart is to be blamed because it imports a lot of stuff from China is a little inverted. It imports from there because that's where the industry suppliers are for clothing, shoes, et al. It imports from there for the same reason that Nike and Reebok make their shoes there, and K Mart and Dollar General source their products there. It can import from other higher-cost places and go out of business, but some other company would simply pick up the baton, learn from the lessons of Wal Mart's demise (never accept business advice from people who have no skin in the game) and start sourcing in China all over again.

* I tend to think of unionization as a legal form of extortion. If some workers can be part of a union, then all workers ought to be part of a union. But that's not what current union members want - since unionization only benefits its members when a select elite gets to extract an economic surplus from the rest of the population. If everyone else gets their pound of flesh, union members are no better off than they would be if they weren't unionized. In fact, they would be worse off, since they have to pay dues to support the parasitic union leaders in the style to which they have become accustomed - in return for no advantage over the average working stiff, since everyone else in this union shop world also gets his piece of the action, meaning all prices go up.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-03-29 22:51|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2007-03-29 22:51|| Front Page Top

#50 The Harrier (and like models) is a nice enough support plane, and good enough against third world countries, but to have a chance against someone good, you really need fixed-wing fighters.

The difficulty there is that you need a catapult to launch them. AFAIK, only two countries in the world (guess who) have ever deployed successful catapults. Japan never did in WWII. France ended up buying from the US (I think; maybe the UK). The USSR/Russia never solved the problem.

Of course, a future Democrat administration would sell them the technology, but they still need the machine tools and process control to make the things.

Then, as others have noted, you need the "ground" crews to handle the planes, and the aviators to fly them.
Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2007-03-29 23:11|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2007-03-29 23:11|| Front Page Top

02:24 saveababykillademocrat
02:05 saveababykillademocrat
01:27 saveababykillademocrat
01:25 saveababykillademocrat
01:19 saveababykillademocrat
00:04 Saveababykillademocrat
00:03 Saveababykillademocrat
00:01 Saveababykillademocrat
23:57 Cromert
23:54 Zenster
23:48 Zenster
23:45 RD
23:45 smn
23:38 smn
23:37 SteveS
23:35 RD
23:24 Phineter Thraviger
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:11 Jackal
23:04 JosephMendiola
23:04 RD
23:02 RD
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com