Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T - Archive
  Why Would Anyone Be Againest It? (Page 1)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 3 pages long:  1   2   3 
Previous Page | Next Page
Why Would Anyone Be Againest It? by Boondawg
Started on: 01-24-2007 04:02 PM
Replies: 94
Last post by: 2.5 on 12-07-2007 01:30 PM
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
I'm sure it's probibly a much deeper subject then I realize, but why would anyone be againest raising minimum wage?
The cost of food, rent, fuel, transpotation, medicene, etc. all go up.
But minimum wage should not?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16789599/

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-24-2007).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian
Member
Posts: 29569
From: Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2002


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PyrthianSend a Private Message to PyrthianDirect Link to This Post
because not all jobs are intended for people trying to make a living.
IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Direct Link to This Post
You're asking that question in a country that has companies that hire illegal immigrants so they don't have to pay minimum wage now.

The less spent on labor costs, the more profit for the company. That's the main issue.
Business is concerned that an increase in minimum wage will increase costs, which are passed on to customers in higher prices, etc.

IP: Logged
Fastback 86
Member
Posts: 7849
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Sep 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 231
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Fastback 86Send a Private Message to Fastback 86Direct Link to This Post
Costs employers more to pay employees more.
IP: Logged
AntiKev
Member
Posts: 2333
From: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Registered: May 2004


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for AntiKevClick Here to visit AntiKev's HomePageSend a Private Message to AntiKevDirect Link to This Post
Boonie...because it goes against the free market system. The fact is that most states already had minimum wage laws much higher than the previous federal minimum.

I saw an example of an independent dry cleaner, she had something like 3 day and 2 night employees. Because of the minimum wage increase she will have to let go of half of her staff because of the increase in costs of her cleaning supplies because the suppliers have to increase their wages. The result is a net decrease in GDP.

The real reason the Democrats want to raise the minimum wage is that many union contracts are indexed to the minimum wage. So companies like the (not-so) big 3 have to forgo giving bonuses and raises to their salaried employees so that the factory workers can make more money. Luckily most manufacturing labour will be going the way of the dodo because of new robotics and processes.

The majority of people that make minimum wage are students, people ages 16 to 22. And once you get above 19 to the 19-25 bracket, people can work in bars and clubs where they make minimum wage or more and tips. Realistically the only people that are making exactly minimum wage are working in fast food.
IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
Are the poor for it or againest it?
Or is it just the well-off that are against it?

Why don't those in charge put it to a vote of the people?
I bet it would pass.
What do you think?
Would it?
IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
a common argument is that unemployment would go up, as small businesses lay off workers to compensate for the increased minimum.

similar arguments are also made for large businesses, but that case has always seemed less defensible to me, given the buffering effects of economies of scale.

IP: Logged
DRA
Member
Posts: 4543
From: Martinez, Ga, USA
Registered: Oct 1999


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 96
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:16 PM Click Here to See the Profile for DRAClick Here to visit DRA's HomePageDirect Link to This Post
When minimum wage is increased you will see it reflected in services, therefore it's a vicious cycle, raise the wage, the price of things goes up making the raise pretty much null and void. Meanwhile those whose wages are'nt increased by the increase in minimum wage suffer making the lower middle class standard of living even lower.

I don't have any data to back up my opinion, it's just that my opinion, pretty much uneducated opinion.

------------------
Don't take life too seriously -- you'll never get out if it alive.

IP: Logged
frontal lobe
Member
Posts: 9042
From: brookfield,wisconsin
Registered: Dec 1999


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 166
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:17 PM Click Here to See the Profile for frontal lobeDirect Link to This Post
The main issue is it will increase the cost of the product. Often to the point of not being competitive any more. So sales go down. Less sales. We must cut cost. Let's eliminate some jobs.

Raising the minimum wage often winds up reducing the number of jobs.

Then, like pyrthian said, people that weren't trying to survive on that job, but just supplement. Or people that were just getting started in the work force. Or part-timers like college students. Those jobs go away.
IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:22 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
But on the high-end, the uppershelf is getting HUGE severence & retirement packages.
Junkets, vacations, and all the other things buisness gives away to their eliete.
But those don't raise the price to the consumer?

EDIT: When a company moves over seas, makes a sneaker for $1.42, then sells it over here for $150.00, how does that help anyone but them? How are they making more jobs? How are they saveing the consumer money?

It seems the story is always the same: To save the consumer money.
But is that really why?
I mean really?

If employers could get away with it, would they pay their employees nothing?
Would they engage in slavery?

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-24-2007).]

IP: Logged
DRA
Member
Posts: 4543
From: Martinez, Ga, USA
Registered: Oct 1999


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 96
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for DRAClick Here to visit DRA's HomePageSend a Private Message to DRADirect Link to This Post
Oh, and it goes without saying as others have already stated there WILL be a decrease in minimum wage jobs available if the minimum wage is raised substancially. Years later as things start to stabilize and jobs increase there will be another push to increase the minimum wage, again a vicious ongoing cycle.

And once again, entirely my opinion, no relevant data I can quote to back up these assumptions.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
DRA
Member
Posts: 4543
From: Martinez, Ga, USA
Registered: Oct 1999


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 96
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for DRAClick Here to visit DRA's HomePageSend a Private Message to DRADirect Link to This Post

DRA

4543 posts
Member since Oct 1999
 
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:

But on the high-end, the uppershelf is getting HUGE severence & retirement packages.
Junkets, vacations, and all the other things buisness gives away to their eliete.
But those don't raise the price to the consumer?


Those guys are gonna get theirs regardless and if the cost of those things go up then it's just an additional burden on the consumer. I personally think it's rediculous to pay any CEO or corporate officer over $250,000.00 a year, let alone bonuses of up to a couple of million to guys that are only barely doing their jobs! Heck when I did my job correctly I was lucky if anyone even acknowledged it verbally, I was paid to do the job, should I get a bonus for doing it right?
Alright, see what you've started, this is why I try to stay away from these threads LOL, now my blood pressure is up and my head is hurting!

This is different subject from minimum wage and deserves it's own thread! LOL
IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:31 PM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:

But on the high-end, the uppershelf is getting HUGE severence & retirement packages.
Junkets, vacations, and all the other things buisness gives away to their eliete.
But those don't raise the price to the consumer?

EDIT: When a company moves over seas, makes a sneaker for $1.42, then sells it over here for $150.00, how does that help anyone but them? How are they making more jobs? How are they saveing the consumer money?



i think that argument here is that a large company (usually) is not just a profit-making engine for its managers, but for its shareholders. so the immense salaries and benefits paid to the top tier are supposed to be compensation for their success in making the company more profitable in general, and the manufacturing-to-retail markup is how that profit is generated.

of course, these are ideal arguments, reflecting a "pure market" state of affairs which doesn't - nor cannot, really - exist.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-24-2007).]

IP: Logged
Taijiguy
Member
Posts: 12198
From: Delaware, OH.
Registered: Jul 99


Feedback score:    (8)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 244
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for TaijiguySend a Private Message to TaijiguyDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:

But on the high-end, the uppershelf is getting HUGE severence & retirement packages.
Junkets, vacations, and all the other things buisness gives away to their eliete.
But those don't raise the price to the consumer?

<snip>


The problem with that logic is that those gigantic companies you're talking about don't make up the majority of businesses in this country. In any town my guess would be that 80% of the businesses are small businesses like my own. And I can promise you, I'm not taking any junkets or expensive trips. And I'm as "elite" as this company gets. I could probably mange to hire one or two people, but I won't. For two reasons: the minimum wage is rediculous, and frankly, the potential liabilities just aren't worth the headaches. I know there will be those who'll jump in and tell me I'm wrong, but I'll just say it: the work ethic in the US is the worst in the world. Most of the workers in this country are a bunch of lazy crybabies who want the most money for the least amount of work, and don't feel like they should have to work to keep their job. That once they get their foot in the door they should be able to screw off and do a crappy job, and have the government rush in and rescue them from their own incompetence. And the suggestion that the minumum wage should be increased is just evidence of the government supporting their laziness.
Jaded? Nah, not me.
IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

the work ethic in the US is the worst in the world. Most of the workers in this country are a bunch of lazy crybabies who want the most money for the least amount of work, and don't feel like they should have to work to keep their job. That once they get their foot in the door they should be able to screw off and do a crappy job :


I wish I could argue that.................. ......................but I can't!
I even see a little of it in me!

IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:45 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:

Are the poor for it or againest it?
Or is it just the well-off that are against it?

Why don't those in charge put it to a vote of the people?
I bet it would pass.
What do you think?
Would it?


I see your point, and raise you one.

Imagine everyone gets to decide what they get paid. How much would YOU get paid then? If everyone got paid what they "want" how long do you think the businesses would stay in business?

When you look for a product, do you look for the most expensive? Or do you try to get the most for your money?
Labor is no different. There has to be a balance between what the employer wants and what the employee wants.

 
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:
If employers could get away with it, would they pay their employees nothing?
Would they engage in slavery?



Go ask your boss if he'll let you take a pay cut or work for free and you'll have your answer.
If someone offered to shovel your snow for $100 would you pay it? Would you pay $20?
How about if they offered to do it for free?
IP: Logged
fierofetish
Member
Posts: 19173
From: Northeast Spain
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 277
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierofetishSend a Private Message to fierofetishDirect Link to This Post
Because, long ago, people forgot that productivity, not the cost of living, merited an increase in remuneration. It is that simple,yet that complicated. If a guy works at a machine, for example, and produces 20 items a day, and continues to do so every year..why should he earn more every year? Because his cost of living has risen? However, should he work HARDER, and produce 25 items a day, he deserves to earn more. Collective wage bargaining in the sixties and seventies, in the UK, eventually led to the downfall of many manufacturing companies..because the factory had to pay out more wages every year, and couldn't offset the expense by having more produce to sell. There were some who deserved an increase..but the whole workforce got it too, even though many of them did nothing more than the previous year.It really is that simple. The day that people start to try to be more productive, is the day when the employer can, and SHOULD pay more.The Trade Unions went a long way toward balancing productivity to reward..but got too big for their boots, andf started to blackmail the employers into paying more than the job merited..a recipe for disaster.That is why there is so little manufacturing now, in the UK.Productivity, not cost of living, should result in better pay.One way leads to inflation, the other to expansion.
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 01-24-2007).]

IP: Logged
tutnkmn
Member
Posts: 3426
From: York, England, U.K. Living in Ohio
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 65
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 04:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for tutnkmnSend a Private Message to tutnkmnDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by DRA:

When minimum wage is increased you will see it reflected in services, therefore it's a vicious cycle, raise the wage, the price of things goes up making the raise pretty much null and void. Meanwhile those whose wages are'nt increased by the increase in minimum wage suffer making the lower middle class standard of living even lower.

I don't have any data to back up my opinion, it's just that my opinion, pretty much uneducated opinion.



I'd say this is a logical argument. I'm not an economics major but it seems to make sense. I have a friend who works in a quarry in Columbus (Marble Cliff). He makes about $16.00/hour and is on the road 2 hours a day to and from work (1 hour each way - eats lots of -expensive gasoline). He is dead set against the raise in minimum as it will make things more expensive (raise inflation) while his wage will remain the same.
IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:03 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:

Because, long ago, people forgot that productivity, not the cost of living, merited an increase in remuneration. It is that simple,yet that complicated. If a guy works at a machine, for example, and produces 20 items a day, and continues to do so every year..why should he earn more every year? Because his cost of living has risen? However, should he work HARDER, and produce 25 items a day, he deserves to earn more. Collective wage bargaining in the sixties and seventies, in the UK, eventually led to the downfall of many manufacturing companies..because the factory had to pay out more wages every year, and couldn't offset the expense by having more produce to sell. There were some who deserved an increase..but the whole workforce got it too, even though many of them did nothing more than the previous year.It really is that simple. The day that people start to try to be more productive, is the day when the employer can, and SHOULD pay more.The Trade Unions went a long way toward balancing productivity to reward..but got too big for their boots, andf started to blackmail the employers into paying more than the job merited..a recipe for disaster.That is why there is so little manufacturing now, in the UK.Productivity, not cost of living, should result in better pay.One way leads to inflation, the other to expansion.
Nick



And this is in the vein i'm trying to understand.
I wish I was smarter.

Let's take something and look at it.
The rising cost of something.
Anything...........well, something that isn't artificually inflated, like oil.

Uuuummmm.................I just can't think of anything.

But why does anything cost more to produce this year then last year?
The cost of supplies, transportation, etc. goes up
The wage stays the same.
The rise in cost is passed on to the consumer.

But alot of those same things that rose the price of the product also cost the consumer in his everyday life.
Who does HE get to pass the cost to?
No one.
He has to eat the loss.
But how can he do that?
By making more money.

What am I missing?
I mean that, really.
I want to know.


IP: Logged
Taijiguy
Member
Posts: 12198
From: Delaware, OH.
Registered: Jul 99


Feedback score:    (8)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 244
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for TaijiguySend a Private Message to TaijiguyDirect Link to This Post
It's called a edumacation....
IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:

What am I missing?
I mean that, really.
I want to know.



actually, you're not really missing anything. what you've got your finger on is the process of inflation, inevitable in an economic system predicated on increasing margins. the trick is not to let it fly out of control... and that's partly the job of the fed.

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
Ok, a buisness has to take in more then they pay out.
When that gap starts to close, the buisness either has to cut costs or raise prices.

A household is faced with the same problems.
But what happens when the house has cut costs all they can, to the point of slowly killing themselves?
How do they raise prices?
By getting second job?
Then their costs increase in transportation, household care they no longer have the time to do, etc.
So then what?
Who do they pass the cost to?

OK, so you raise the wage.
You charge more for the product.
The rich can easily afford it, the working poor can barely afford it, and the non-working poor cannot.
So the non-working poor get poorer, the working poor barely get buy, and the rich don't even notice.
Work, and you get by.
Don't, and you won't.

It just seems the system is designed to keep the really poor, really poor.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-24-2007).]

IP: Logged
Phranc
Member
Posts: 7777
From: Maryland
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 243
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:21 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PhrancSend a Private Message to PhrancDirect Link to This Post
Just remember that a raise in the minimum wage is raise for everyone.
IP: Logged
fierofetish
Member
Posts: 19173
From: Northeast Spain
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 277
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierofetishSend a Private Message to fierofetishDirect Link to This Post
You have 20 employees.They produce in year x, 20.000 items.That is 1000 each. Now, if one man should work harder, and produce 1100, bu the others produce the same as last year, the total production is 20.100. The one guy has increased his PERSONAL output by 10%..but because the other 19 employess have only produced the same amount as LAST year, the total productivity has risen by only .2%...The guy who has worked hard, and increased his output by 10% deserves a 10% increase, but the workforce as a whole only merit .2%..and THAT was earned by the one guy.Raise refused.The hardworking guy says 'F... that..and goes back to normal production..so the price of the goods remains static..but falls behind because of inflation..so the company has to raise its prices to stay level.The Union would have come in and bullied the management to raise wages on the strength of one guy's productivity..and then everybody gets an increase..without 19 of the 20 workforce doing a thing extra.Now, if the Union had bargained for the ONE person who deserved the raise, and told the others they would have to work as hard as the guy who upped personal production to get the same increase, then the Union would be working properly. Unfortunately, the Unions started to claim wage increases without linked productivity..and crippled the company. What were they to do? They would get rid of 10% of the workforce, just to stay in the market.But the Union wouldn't allow that. So the place went bust.Inflation is caused by poor productivity, and unmerited wage increases. Prosperity is created by doing more, until the norm is re-established..and then CONTINUED productivity would enable the employer to reward the workers.
Nick
IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Phranc:

Just remember that a raise in the minimum wage is raise for everyone.


Which is exactlly what i'm shooting for, without doing anymore work!

IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:

Ok, a buisness has to take in more then they pay out.
When that gap starts to close, the buisness either has to cut costs or raise prices.

A household is faced with the same problems.
But what happens when the house has cut costs all they can, to the point of slowly killing themselves?
How do they raise prices?
By getting second job?
Then their costs increase in transportation, household care they no longer have the time to do, etc.
So then what?
Who do they pass the cost to?



a household doesn't pass the costs on to anyone, because a household is a consumer, not a producer.
as a worker ages, they are supposed to be more experienced and productive, and hence bring in more pay. they might also be expected to be participating in profit-sharing, or actually owning shares in their own company.
these days, of course, one has to continually learn new skills, and be willing to change careers much more easily. simply being more productive, but static, is not sufficient.

 
quote
OK, so you raise the wage.
You charge more for the product.
The rich can easily afford it, the working poor can barely afford it, and the non-working poor cannot.
So the non-working poor get poorer, the working poor barely get buy, and the rich don't even notice.
Work, and you get by.
Don't, and you won't.

It just seems the system is designed to keep the really poor, really poor.


well, in some ways it sort of is. it is extremely hard to significantly advance from the class you were born into. not impossible. but demanding as hell.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-24-2007).]

IP: Logged
Taijiguy
Member
Posts: 12198
From: Delaware, OH.
Registered: Jul 99


Feedback score:    (8)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 244
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:29 PM Click Here to See the Profile for TaijiguySend a Private Message to TaijiguyDirect Link to This Post
Actually, let's carry Nick's analogy a step further. How about this: We increase minumum wage by 20%, and in return we require that all minumum wage employees increase their productivity by 10%. How would that fly? I bet a requirement like that would send most employees running and crying and protesting that it's unfair....
IP: Logged
DRA
Member
Posts: 4543
From: Martinez, Ga, USA
Registered: Oct 1999


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 96
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:31 PM Click Here to See the Profile for DRAClick Here to visit DRA's HomePageSend a Private Message to DRADirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:

Because, long ago, people forgot that productivity, not the cost of living, merited an increase in remuneration. It is that simple,yet that complicated. If a guy works at a machine, for example, and produces 20 items a day, and continues to do so every year..why should he earn more every year? Because his cost of living has risen? However, should he work HARDER, and produce 25 items a day, he deserves to earn more. Collective wage bargaining in the sixties and seventies, in the UK, eventually led to the downfall of many manufacturing companies..because the factory had to pay out more wages every year, and couldn't offset the expense by having more produce to sell. There were some who deserved an increase..but the whole workforce got it too, even though many of them did nothing more than the previous year.It really is that simple. The day that people start to try to be more productive, is the day when the employer can, and SHOULD pay more.The Trade Unions went a long way toward balancing productivity to reward..but got too big for their boots, andf started to blackmail the employers into paying more than the job merited..a recipe for disaster.That is why there is so little manufacturing now, in the UK.Productivity, not cost of living, should result in better pay.One way leads to inflation, the other to expansion.
Nick



Problem with that type of thinking is that if the guy increases his production to 25 units a day, he will no longer be needed to work 5 days a week to make 100 units, he will only be working 4 days a week, so in reality even if they raise his wage he may end up making less money in the long run because he will be working less hours or one or more off the other workers will have to be eliminated. You cannot just keep making things and putting them in warehouses, it cost money to store things, it cost for materials and labor to produce things, you don't want to produce anymore than you can sell, that is how you maximize profits!
I worked in a plant when I was younger and when I took over running three Huffman CNC machines on third shift the first and second shift operators along with some of the other machine operators had a little talk with me about my productiuon numbers. They said that if I continued to produce product within specs at the rate I was that the other operators would also be pressured to increase their output and that eventually an entire shift may be laid off. I was just doing what I was taught by my grandfather to do, to do the best job I could. I didn't realize at the time the kind of trickle effect a change in one little cog could make.
It's all real complicated and their are so many intertwined dependencies in the way the economy works or doesn't work LOL.

This statement, "The day that people start to try to be more productive, is the day when the employer can, and SHOULD pay more." Actually if the company is being run effeciantly and their sales projections are fairly accurate an increase in production actually means less wages for the workers and more profits to the shareholders. You can do one of two things, pay the employee more and give them less time therefore making their total yearly income stay about the same, or fire a couple of people so that the remaining folks can work their original hours at a higher rate and pay more into social security and taxes to help support the ones that got fired so that they could n\make more.
It's all confusing and really twisted no matter how you look at it. It's easy to try and simplify macro or micro economics and all the therory surrounding it but in reality it is complicated, way to complicated for anyone to truly understand unless they dedicate a good portion of their life to the study of the subject.

I love discussing these types of subjects but really have a very limited understanding, I took a few economics classes and a few accounting classes that I had to take to get my degree in computer programming. I've worked doing programming for Electrolux of Sweden (owners of frigidaire, american yard products, husky chainsaws, etc, etc), Thermal Ceramics owned by a UK company whose name escapes me (space shuttle tiles, fire brick, etc), and a couple of local medical billing companies that dealt with medicare/medicaid/private insurance claims. It always amazed me the amount of ignorance present in these companies upper management, people that were paid enormous salaries and didn't have the slightest clue what they were doing. I personally do not feel that the american worker is to blame as much as american management practices.

My girlfriend is yelling at me to get off the computer, she thinks I spend to much time on here........... probably do.
IP: Logged
fierofetish
Member
Posts: 19173
From: Northeast Spain
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 277
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:33 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierofetishSend a Private Message to fierofetishDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:
..... simply being more productive, but static, is not sufficient.


Being more productive IS the answer..as long as the Employer recognises,and rewards the increased productivity..and THAT is where responsible Unions come in...so long as extra productivity exceeds the rate of inflation.., then increases in wages are merited to a level achieved by productivity over inflation. If you produce 10% more for the same cost, and inflation rises 2%, theoretically the workforce should be rewarded with an 8% increase..

Nick
IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
Ok, what if tommorow, everything went up 50%, with companies saying, "I have GOT to increase my profets, just to compete and stay in buisness!"?
Would people just say, "Oh, I guess I'll just have to get a couple more jobs."?
No one at the top of the food chain is accountable for the ones on the bottom?

People keep saying, "Keep the cost of labor down, and the cost to the consumer goes down."

But what about that $150.00 shoe that was built for $1.50 by workers that make 70 cents an hour?

I have a feeling that THAT is REALLY what the bottomline is in buisness.
It isn't about a "Balanced Economny", or a "Working System".
IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post

Boondawg

38235 posts
Member since Jun 2003
P.S. I am learning alot from this thread!
Thank you!
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
fierofetish
Member
Posts: 19173
From: Northeast Spain
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 277
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierofetishSend a Private Message to fierofetishDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by DRA:


Problem with that type of thinking is that if the guy increases his production to 25 units a day, he will no longer be needed to work 5 days a week to make 100 units, he will only be working 4 days a week, so in reality even if they raise his wage he may end up making less money in the long run because he will be working less hours or one or more off the other workers will have to be eliminated.


It all depends on marketablity of the product,IMHO. If you are competing with the same kind of producers in your market, then you can LOWER your prices, due to increased efficiency, and therefore increase your market share..and maintain your profitability, increase sales at the expense of competitors..and so continue to be successful. If the marketplace is flooded with your type of product, and there is not a big enough market to absorb your productivity..you are selling the wrong produce

IP: Logged
AntiKev
Member
Posts: 2333
From: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Registered: May 2004


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:41 PM Click Here to See the Profile for AntiKevClick Here to visit AntiKev's HomePageSend a Private Message to AntiKevDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:
...
Let's take something and look at it.
The rising cost of something.
Anything...........well, something that isn't artificually inflated, like oil.
...


Everything is related to the price of oil. Why? Because most things contain some plastic. Plastic is produced from oil. Don't believe me? Take your plastic lawn chair and throw it in the fire.
IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:42 PM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:


Being more productive IS the answer..as long as the Employer recognises,and rewards the increased productivity..and THAT is where responsible Unions come in...so long as extra productivity exceeds the rate of inflation.., then increases in wages are merited to a level achieved by productivity over inflation. If you produce 10% more for the same cost, and inflation rises 2%, theoretically the workforce should be rewarded with an 8% increase..

Nick


the likelihood of a single worker contributing 10% of their own worth to the profitability of a company is not that high. so the best one can normally do is keep pace.

i am a salaried employee working in a small company in a non-unionized industry. i have had one raise in five years, that did not reflect either inflation or the substantial increase in my own skill and productivity. and i rather think that's the norm, not the exception.
IP: Logged
fierofetish
Member
Posts: 19173
From: Northeast Spain
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 277
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierofetishSend a Private Message to fierofetishDirect Link to This Post
The problem, as I see it, is with people being resentful at the salaries of their Executives being disproportionately higher than theirs.What many fail to realise is, that if you took the CEO's salary increase of, say $100.000 per annum, and spread it amongst the 10.000 workers, for example..they would only be $10 a year better off...and your CEO, who MUST be efficient, will go somewhere else that WILL continue his justified salary.( In a lot of cases, I believe CEO's earn their salary..and if they DON'T..they don't stay around long )
Nick

 
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:

Ok, what if tommorow, everything went up 50%, with companies saying, "I have GOT to increase my profets, just to compete and stay in buisness!"?
Would people just say, "Oh, I guess I'll just have to get a couple more jobs."?
No one at the top of the food chain is accountable for the ones on the bottom?

People keep saying, "Keep the cost of labor down, and the cost to the consumer goes down."

But what about that $150.00 shoe that was built for $1.50 by workers that make 70 cents an hour?

I have a feeling that THAT is REALLY what the bottomline is in buisness.
It isn't about a "Balanced Economny", or a "Working System".


IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:48 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:


the likelihood of a single worker contributing 10% of their own worth to the profitability of a company is not that high. so the best one can normally do is keep pace.

i am a salaried employee working in a small company in a non-unionized industry. i have had one raise in five years, that did not reflect either inflation or the substantial increase in my own skill and productivity. and i rather think that's the norm, not the exception.



That is my story also.
My raise was given to keep me happy.
I cannot produce anymore then I already am.
I would like to see C.O.L.A., though.
The cost of gas, electric, transportation, goes up for my bosses buisness.
He raises his price to stay even.
But The cost of gas, electric, transportation has gone up for ME also!
I need MY price raised to stay even, too!
Don't I?
IP: Logged
fierofetish
Member
Posts: 19173
From: Northeast Spain
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 277
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierofetishSend a Private Message to fierofetishDirect Link to This Post
You are quite right, in fact.But the main fear that holds back employees trying to increase their productivity, is that that endeavour will not be recognised, and rewarded.That is wrong, totally wrong. The only people therefore benefiting from your productivity is the Owner.shareholders..totally wrong and unfair.
Nick

 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:


the likelihood of a single worker contributing 10% of their own worth to the profitability of a company is not that high. so the best one can normally do is keep pace.

i am a salaried employee working in a small company in a non-unionized industry. i have had one raise in five years, that did not reflect either inflation or the substantial increase in my own skill and productivity. and i rather think that's the norm, not the exception.


IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:

Ok, what if tommorow, everything went up 50%, with companies saying, "I have GOT to increase my profets, just to compete and stay in buisness!"?Would people just say, "Oh, I guess I'll just have to get a couple more jobs."?


that's an awkward example, i'm afraid, representing catastrophe, rather than normal economics. if it happened on that scale, well... everything would change.

on the smaller scale that is represented by normal inflation... well, how many more multiple-income families do you know now, than you did when you were young?

 
quote

No one at the top of the food chain is accountable for the ones on the bottom?


no. not in this system. not structurally, anyway.

 
quote

People keep saying, "Keep the cost of labor down, and the cost to the consumer goes down."


and in the normal course of things, that's even true. the cost of labor is a significant capital component.

 
quote

But what about that $150.00 shoe that was built for $1.50 by workers that make 70 cents an hour?


i guess that depends on whether your perspective is that of producer, consumer, investor, etc...

IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:


i guess that depends on whether your perspective is that of producer, consumer, investor, etc...


Yeah, it's a tuff thing, when the 70 cent an hour worker is DAMN happy to have the job!
Best money they made in a LONG time!
Ofcourse, everything they buy local is cheaper, to match their wage.
Becouse it was produced for less?
IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post01-24-2007 05:59 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post

Boondawg

38235 posts
Member since Jun 2003
 
quote
Originally posted by DRA:

It's all real complicated and their are so many intertwined dependencies in the way the economy works or doesn't work LOL.

It's all confusing and really twisted no matter how you look at it. It's easy to try and simplify macro or micro economics and all the therory surrounding it but in reality it is complicated, way to complicated for anyone to truly understand unless they dedicate a good portion of their life to the study of the subject.



I'm beginning to understand that.
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 3 pages long:  1   2   3 


All times are ET (US)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock