If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2661
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7837 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2661 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | » | Last
 
  2008-04-08 06:54:59 AM  
Not really rainforest.....

I provide my workers with a paycheck.

It is up to them to decide what they want to do with that paycheck.

IF one of my workers spend all of his money on srippers and booze it is not my fault that he doesn't have insurance, a home, car or enough food to eat.
 
  2008-04-08 11:43:49 AM  
dottedmint: I provide my workers with a paycheck.

Herein lies your basic problem. You treat your human resources just like you treat any other raw material in your supply chain. It's strictly a cash exchange on your part. If labor provides nothing more to your business than any other random part, say a piece of steel, why not replace them all with robots? On the other hand, suppose they do add certain value to your business process? Say, like being able to notice when a widget falls off its hook and jams the conveyor, they can stop the line before the whole thing breaks and save you several million dollars in repairs and down time. If your system actually NEEDS humans then you really ought to treat them humanely.

It is up to them to decide what they want to do with that paycheck.

IF one of my workers spend all of his money on srippers and booze it is not my fault that he doesn't have insurance, a home, car or enough food to eat.


I'll agree that if you pay your employee enough to afford food, shelter, and clothing; a serviceable car( or fees for mass transit if it exists); health care for them and their family; education for their kids; and something to save for retirement, then, no, it's not your problem if they blow it all on strippers and booze.

But if all you do is provide a paycheck and never look to see if it covers their basic human needs then you're being very short sighted.

Disgruntled workers are worse than not having any workers at all.
 
  2008-04-08 06:29:00 PM  
"Herein lies your basic problem. You treat your human resources just like you treat any other raw material in your supply chain. It's strictly a cash exchange on your part."

Actually RainForest a good workforce is nothing more than a raw material.

As a business owner I would need to try to find the best workers for the best price, just as I would do with any other raw material.

"I'll agree that if you pay your employee enough to afford food, shelter, and clothing; a serviceable car( or fees for mass transit if it exists); health care for them and their family; education for their kids; and something to save for retirement, then, no, it's not your problem if they blow it all on strippers and booze."

Except that not all jobs warrant getting paid enough to cover everything that you list.

IF someone is willing to work and only get paid a small fraction of what you think they should why shouldn't that be up to them?

"Disgruntled workers are worse than not having any workers at all."

To a point.....

But the point is that if someone is not happy with what I pay them they could find a job that pays more than I do....
 
  2008-04-09 01:24:49 AM  
dottedmint: As a business owner I would need to try to find the best workers for the best price, just as I would do with any other raw material.

Workers are not raw material: they're your fellow human beings. Treating them as a commodity and not sharing the wealth that their labor helps create is what causes revolutions.
 
  2008-04-09 02:55:46 AM  
dottedmint: It is utterly pointless at this time if you feel it was a mistake to go into Iraq.

Fine. Then you're simply setting the stage for the next failure.

I don't think you've
 
  2008-04-09 03:18:32 AM  
Whoops. Hit the comment button too quickly.

dottedmint: IF you want to call it a mistake to go into Iraq. Fine. I really don't care if you think it was a mistake. It is utterly pointless at this time if you feel it was a mistake to go into Iraq.

No, by not condemning the entire operation as the failure it is only sets the stage for the next one.

The United States has proven time and again that, unless we are in a defensive capacity like WWII where we have no choice but to engage in military action as a defensive measure, we utterly fail. No operation where we've meddled in other countries' business has been successful. Not one. And what's more, those actions often end up biting us in the ass years later. It hurts our image, and convinces the world we are hypocrites who don't believe in democracy, but empire-building.

So yes, it's important to condemn Iraq, not ignore the reasons for its failure.

And I've already said what we need to do: it needs to be a UN-backed international peacekeeping force to stop the fighting. Then we accept whatever government the people of Iraq decide upon and never bother them again. That's what we need to do.

Look Whidbey if you don't want corporate welfare.... Fine. But that does not change the economic fact that any cost that you place on a company will be passed primarily onto either the customers or the workers. You can't legislate that away.

I really don't care. If it's a corporation that can afford it, and then increase prices or otherwise saddle the consumer, they should be punished. Doubly so if they fire workers after they implement the changes.

Not only do you think I need to provide each of my workers with 60 days where they get paid to not work but you also now seem to be saying that I couldn't fire any of them if it gets too expensive for me to keep them?

Maybe you shouldn't be in business, then.

Your plan would actually cause more harm to more people.

As I said before simply increasing the min wage does nothing but make things more expensive for everyone.


Sorry, but I'm just going to have to call BS on this. You have nothing to back this up with.

But I think you want to be a slavedriver, dottedmint. Admit it. You don't believe people should have the right to acceptable conditions in the workplace. Great. Glad we got that out of the way. You'd rather pay people a dollar a day, wouldn't you? If you could get away with it...


First I have to say that I really love the totally meaningless term of "a real living rage". It sounds nice but doesn't actually mean anything.


It's only meaningless to you. It means a lot to people struggling trying to make ends meet.

And I'll say it again: companies should pay a living wage or they shouldn't be doing business.


Liberals think ----- Gimme some of your money because you have too much.
Conservatives think ---- Get out of my way so I can make my own money.


Yes, let's just make a bunch of stereotypical, meaningless statements, shall we?

You belong in a museum, dottedmint.
 
  2008-04-09 07:20:58 AM  
RainForest "Treating them as a commodity and not sharing the wealth that their labor helps create is what causes revolutions."

UM.... Are you forgetting the fact that I do "share in the wealth" by paying them a salary.

But in any case for me to make my widgets I need a list of materials. But those materials are useless to me if I do not have quality workers. This makes them another thing that I need to make my widget.

When I buy my steel I am going to try to find the best quality steel for the best price.

When I hire workers I am going to try to hire the best workers for the best price.

I am not going to want to pay more for those workers than I need to just as I am not going to want to pay more for the steel than I need to pay.

IF you have a widget company next to mine and you pay $3/hr more than I pay you are going to get the best quality workers and my company will suffer and I will be forced to increase my wages to try to get better workers.

Whidbey "If it's a corporation that can afford it, and then increase prices or otherwise saddle the consumer, they should be punished. Doubly so if they fire workers after they implement the changes."

I'm still curious how you would plan on punishing those companies and how you would know if I laid off 50 of my workers because of those "perks" or if I laid them off for other reasons.

Oh and how exactly would you tell if I was going to "saddle the consumer" with the extra costs?

Are you going to pass a law that somehow sets a standard price for my product?

"Sorry, but I'm just going to have to call BS on this. You have nothing to back this up with. "

Are you saying that you don't think everything would get more expensive or are you saying that you don't think your plan would cause more harm?

"Admit it. You don't believe people should have the right to acceptable conditions in the workplace. Great. Glad we got that out of the way. You'd rather pay people a dollar a day, wouldn't you? If you could get away with it..."

Not at all....

As I worker I have the right to "acceptable conditions" and if the working conditions that I am exposed to are not "acceptable" to me I can leave.

Also....

IF I am willing to work for YOUR widget company for $1.00 per day why would that not be my choice?

Am I not allowed to decide for myself how much I need to get paid for my work?

"It's only meaningless to you. It means a lot to people struggling trying to make ends meet. "

Fine if it has "meaning" tell me how many dollars per hour a "living wage" should be.

"Yes, let's just make a bunch of stereotypical, meaningless statements, shall we?"

What???

YOu don't think the rich should have to pay more because they have more?
 
  2008-04-09 08:20:31 AM  
dottedmint: When I buy my steel I am going to try to find the best quality steel for the best price.

Logically translated that's the same as saying: I am going to buy the lowest quality steel I can find for the cheapest price that will meet the minimum standard set by my customer.

And if you think they won't catch you you'll probably cheat on the minimum specs.

You're doing the exact same thing with your workforce and getting exactly the same result: the poorest quality worker that can barely get the job done. One competent worker could probably replace three of the people you're hiring, you could pay him 2.5 times as much, and you'd come out ahead. Even if you only managed to replace 3 of your current drones with 2 good people and split the extra pay between them, everyone would be better off. Either way, you'd have higher quality workers; fewer employees and, therefore, less paperwork, lower taxes, and less government regulation; and you're workforce would be better paid, happier, and more stable.
 
  2008-04-09 05:20:21 PM  
dottedmint:
I'm still curious how you would plan on punishing those companies and how you would know if I laid off 50 of my workers because of those "perks" or if I laid them off for other reasons.


Depends on the severity of their action. If, say a law gets passed that companies have to have a decent benefits plan, which would include paid time off and affordable medical benefits, and then they retaliate by notably raising prices, downsizing or flat out heading overseas, they should be punished by fines on the low end or actual dismantling of their charter if it can be proven that their actions are detrimental to a community. Yeah.

Oh and how exactly would you tell if I was going to "saddle the consumer" with the extra costs?

I don't know. You're the one obsessed with it. You tell me. My contention is that they won't. They'll just stop paying their CEOs ridiculous salaries and perks for upper level management would have to be cut.

Are you going to pass a law that somehow sets a standard price for my product?

No. It's just obvious to me that many big corporations could absorb the cost without raising prices. Like you've said, it would be an investment to make for a better workplace. I don't even really want to pass any laws to enforce this. It should be common sense. I get tired of hearing the cheapskate ways of companies trying to "compete." Maybe they shouldn't be spreading themselves out to thin. Maybe they should be working locally instead of worrying about what the Chinese are doing. I think that's the whole point of my argument here. If we worked more locally instead of buying into the "global economy" nonsense, this country would prosper again, not be artificially propped up with the Fed and the concerns of the 1% who are basically raping the rest of the world to stay stinking rich.

Are you saying that you don't think everything would get more expensive or are you saying that you don't think your plan would cause more harm?

You cannot prove that raising the minimum wage makes everything more expensive. It's a useless argument. The fact is that people have more money in their pockets than they had before.

As I worker I have the right to "acceptable conditions" and if the working conditions that I am exposed to are not "acceptable" to me I can leave.

Then I should have the right to sue you if our definitions of "acceptable" vary to the point where you caused me, your worker, harm.

IF I am willing to work for YOUR widget company for $1.00 per day why would that not be my choice?
Am I not allowed to decide for myself how much I need to get paid for my work?


No one with any sense of self-esteem is going to work for a dollar a day. Period.

Fine if [a living wage] has "meaning" tell me how many dollars per hour a "living wage" should be.

The minimum wage should be about $15. And in addition to that, Congress should approve funding for job training programs. I agree that merely throwing money at a problem isn't enough. People aren't always able to find the jobs they want. Sometimes they can only work what they can find, and that's part of the problem.
 
  2008-04-09 06:17:25 PM  
So is this where are the old socialists on Fark go to feign relevance?
 
  2008-04-09 09:45:59 PM  
Not necessarily RainForest....

When I say I would hire the best quality workers for the best wage it does not mean that I am going to want to hire workers who can "barely get the job done".

That would be for the exact reason that you get into....

I am going to hire workers who I feel would do the best job for the best price.

IF I see that your widget company has better quality workers than I do I am going to realize that for some reason my company is not attracting those quality workers.

Why?

Maybe I don't pay as well....

Maybe I don't have insurance....

Maybe I don't offer days off....

Maybe there is some other "perk" that you have that I don't....

In any case since I want to attract the quality workers I will need to decide what changes I am going to make to attract the workers that I want.

I was the manager of a small company several years ago and I kept trying to get the owner to increase the wages that we paid our workers because I was having a hard time finding quality workers who were willing to work for what my boss wanted to pay. Because of that his company suffered.

When he did finally give in and raise the starting wage for our workers things turned around drastically and I finally started having high quality workers applying to work for his company.

The point is that I was not finding the best quality workers because I was not able to offer the best possible wage.
 
  2008-04-09 09:46:51 PM  
eastbaywatch: is this where are the old socialists on Fark go to feign relevance?

I am NOT old, I'm anti-social and the only thing I've ever feigned was an orgasm or two when it was necessary to get the guy to give up and go home. But all of that is irrelevant.
 
  2008-04-09 10:50:56 PM  
Whidbey

"and then they retaliate by notably raising prices, downsizing or flat out heading overseas, they should be punished by fines on the low end or actual dismantling of their charter if it can be proven that their actions are detrimental to a community. "

I find that whole concept scary.....

You want to increase costs to US companies but want to punish those companies if they pass any of that increase onto their customers or their workers.

Ultimately I doubt if you could actually prove if a company was passing these costs on or not or if they were downsizing because of these increased costs.

Companies raise costs and downsize all the time.....

Prove to me that when I do it I am doing for the reasons you want to outlaw....

"They'll just stop paying their CEOs ridiculous salaries and perks for upper level management would have to be cut."

Well....since it is my widget company I am going to decide (for myself) how much I am going to pay myself.

"It's just obvious to me that many big corporations could absorb the cost without raising prices. "

Maybe they COULD....

That doesn't mean that they would...

I suspect many would decide not to absorb the increase costs....

"You cannot prove that raising the minimum wage makes everything more expensive. It's a useless argument. "

Well....let's see.

IF my widget company hires a bunch of workers at min wage to do nothing more than clean the shop. There is no experience needed and I typically hire highschool kids to do the work.

But then I also have many highly experienced workers who I start at $15/hr.

Suddenly you raise the min wage to $15/hr.

Now my experienced workers get the same pay that my unexperienced highschool workers get. This situation would not last because my experienced workers would want to get paid more.

"Then I should have the right to sue you if our definitions of "acceptable" vary to the point where you caused me, your worker, harm."

So you are going to sue your employer if you don't think they pay you enough or if they don't offer you great "perks"?????

Does your current employer pay you enough, provide insurance, and give you 60 days off to not work?

Obviously not.....

When are you filing your lawsuit against your employer?

The point is that you are not forced to work for me. IF what I offer you is not "acceptable" you can leave and find a boss that does offer you what you feel would be "acceptable".

"No one with any sense of self-esteem is going to work for a dollar a day. Period."

Fine......IF I am willing to work for $8/hr with no "perks" why should I not be allowed to work under those conditions?

That would be "acceptable" to me....

"The minimum wage should be about $15."

And how much would that make the typical "value meal" at McDonalds cost?

Also... Maybe I misunderstood what you intended when you said a "living wage" because I highly doubt I could live getting paid only $15/hr.

"And in addition to that, Congress should approve funding for job training programs."

There are all sorts of job training programs out there.....

Frankly I question if job training programs would be needed if our education system actually did a good job.... But that is a subject for another time...
 
  2008-04-09 11:16:34 PM  
dottedmint: You want to increase costs to US companies but want to punish those companies if they pass any of that increase onto their customers or their workers.

No I do not want to "increase costs." I want companies to play fair, including treating their workers as something valuable. If they have the means to do so and don't, then yes, we should have some means of punishing them. There is a basic benefits package that every company should have.

Ultimately I doubt if you could actually prove if a company was passing these costs on or not or if they were downsizing because of these increased costs.

I really don't see the difference.

The point is that you are not forced to work for me. IF what I offer you is not "acceptable" you can leave and find a boss that does offer you what you feel would be "acceptable".

Every business should have a basic benefits package or they shouldn't be in business. And I find your continued use of the word "perks" annoying. They are basic necessities, yea RIGHTS of the workplace. People spend most of their lives working. They DESERVE it.

There are all sorts of job training programs out there.....

Really? Like what? Name me an effective program that's had a high success rate of landing people decent work.

Frankly I question if job training programs would be needed if our education system actually did a good job.... But that is a subject for another time...

And while I agree with that, I get the impression you wouldn't want to have your taxes raised to fund such an effort.

Your "bootstrap" philosophy is alienating, and unrealistic.
 
  2008-04-09 11:24:42 PM  
Your labor is a commodity. Your agreement with the employer is for each unit of labor that you perform you are traded $X amount. This is an agreement that is freely agreed by both actors.

The amount X is figured out by a variety of weighted items. The two main parts are the value addition and the availability of competing labor (there are also trainability and personality among others but I want to simplify). If you add value above and beyond what is currently available in the laborforce then you have the ability to ask for more money because there is less competition for your labor. If you do not then you are subject to competing labor forces. If there is an overabundance of labor that can freely compete with you then the business can restrict reimbursement of labor to the same as what the lowest bidder asks.

Labor should be able to compete with owners. They can do this by standing by their guns on what is considered fair reimbursement, form collective bargaining groups to pool their influence, increase their attractiveness to employers and feel no loyalty to any employer that has no loyalty to them.

For this free exchange of goods I see no reason for governmental interaction. Each group freely agrees to terms and the terms do not contain unjust terms, the contract can be voided at any time by the laborer.

/Is this the Austrian arguement for labor value?
 
  2008-04-09 11:27:40 PM  
competition for against your labor

mehh
 
  2008-04-10 10:57:06 PM  
Whidbey "No I do not want to "increase costs.""


You are kidding aren't you????

You want to increase min wage to $15/hr, force employers to pay their workers 60 days each year to not work, provide insurance, and apparently never lay off any workers and you honestly think these actions won't increase costs to employers.


What I would like you to explain is how do you know if a company is charging their customers too much. And how exactly do you decide if a lay-off is justified or not? Each time a company lays off (or actually fires) a worker does the government need to step in and do some sort of study to decide if the action of the company was justified?

"And I find your continued use of the word "perks" annoying. They are basic necessities, yea RIGHTS of the workplace. People spend most of their lives working. They DESERVE it."

I'm so sorry you find the term "perks" annoying but that is what they are.

Also.....something that is a "necessity" is something that a person can't live without. Right???

Yet people take on jobs all the time without these "necesssities" and actually survive.

I have done that myself and survived without these "necessities".....

I guess that means they are not as necessary as you want to suggest....

"Really? Like what? Name me an effective program that's had a high success rate of landing people decent work."

Um.....Whidbey.....

IF you do a Google Search for "Job Training Programs" all sorts of results will come up to answer your question.....

Also.....IF you don't think any of the many many job training programs that are out there are good enough do you honestly think one more will somehow make a difference?

"I get the impression you wouldn't want to have your taxes raised to fund such an effort."

Not at all....

I would not have any problem having my taxes raised if it meant that our kids would actually learn.

The problem is that the last several years of seeing my taxes go up to pay for education without seeing improvements in education makes me question if raising my taxes is the best answer to the education problem.

Throwing more money into a broken system does no good if you don't actually fix the system first.

After all many private schools are able to education their students without having to spend as much per student so clearly it isn't just a question of money.

OH....and again....

IF I am willing to take a job that only pays $8/hr [as I have in the past] without any of the "perks" that you talk about why should I not be able to?
 
  2008-04-11 03:15:55 AM  
dottedmint:
You want to increase min wage to $15/hr, force employers to pay their workers 60 days each year to not work, provide insurance, and apparently never lay off any workers and you honestly think these actions won't increase costs to employers.


You can't really prove that such improvements have made things more expensive, is my point. I believe they are necessary investments.

Workers have the RIGHT to paid time off. You can disagree all you like, all it does is make you look like you have no compassion for the working man, which doesn't surprise me.

They also have the RIGHT to a basic health care plan, which they shouldn't have to pay for if the company they're working for make billions of dollars a year.

For smaller companies, the option should be there, at least for companies bigger than 100 employees. Workers are demanding these sort of things, and much to your chagrin are finding their concerns aren't falling on deaf ears. Unfortunately, it takes the government to intervene when businesses engage in cheapskate behavior. Your arguments sound straight out of 1956. Times have changed, and will continue to change. You can either hop on board, or petition for your own museum exhibit "20th Century Workplace."

I would not have any problem having my taxes raised if it meant that our kids would actually learn.

Well! Color me impressed! I don't know what to say.

And I really don't know how to improve education. Right now, seems like much of the money goes into upper-level administration.

I think ultimately there is enough knowledge out there to land a person a decent job. My concern is that people spend a lot of time at work. You'll love this, but I also believe we need to shrink the work week. I would be willing to bet that people DO NOT work eight hours a day, but more like 4 or 5.

I'm also a big supporter of telecommuting. Big savings right there on office space, which I'm sure you know can be ridiculously expensive.

And again, I'm not opposed to subsidizing businesses that need it.

So what's the problem? Why do you want to be such a slavedriver, putting all the stress on the worker when we really don't have to live this way?
 
  2008-04-11 03:22:08 AM  
dottedmint: force employers to pay their workers 60 days each year to not work

Oh BTW. Not everyone uses up their paid time off. I've had a couple of jobs where you lose whatever sick time you've accrued when you quit. They did give me the extra vacation time, so your contention that somehow there's a massive amount of money being spent on workers not to work is another bogus contention.

RIGHTS, dottedmint. Again, much to your to chagrin, there is going to be a Workers Bill of Rights because companies won't do it themselves...:)
 
  2008-04-11 07:12:05 AM  
****SIGH****

"You can't really prove that such improvements have made things more expensive, is my point. I believe they are necessary investments."


IF I have to go from paying a bunch of my workers min wage to paying them $15/hr my products will get more expensive.

I know you say that you will somehow make it illegal for me to pass too much of my expenses onto my customers but you have yet to expain how you would enforce that.

"Workers have the RIGHT to paid time off. You can disagree all you like, all it does is make you look like you have no compassion for the working man, which doesn't surprise me.

They also have the RIGHT to a basic health care plan, which they shouldn't have to pay for if the company they're working for make billions of dollars a year."


WOW...."RIGHTS"........

As a worker I always figured I had the right to decide for my self if I am getting paid enough or if I am getting enough "perks" for me to keep working where I work.

IF I'm not getting what I feel I need to stay there I also have the right to leave that job.

"For smaller companies, the option should be there, at least for companies bigger than 100 employees."

So any company that has fewer than 100 employees would be exempt???

This would cause many employers to downsize so that they get below that number.

"And I really don't know how to improve education. Right now, seems like much of the money goes into upper-level administration."

While much of it does go into administration a large part of the expense in public school is found in "perks".

My local school district spends almost as much money on "perks" (insurance, retirement, time off, etc) as they do on regular pay.

This is basically exactly what you think work conditions should be. You should love it.

I just find it funny that private/religious schools tend to educate their students just as well as public schools (and sometimes better) while not having to spend as much money per student.

OF course....do you support school choice programs???

"Not everyone uses up their paid time off. I've had a couple of jobs where you lose whatever sick time you've accrued when you quit. They did give me the extra vacation time, so your contention that somehow there's a massive amount of money being spent on workers not to work is another bogus contention."

Oh.... instead of using up 60 days of paid time off to not work they would only use up 50 days????

Most workers will use up each and every hour of time that they have coming to them....

"My concern is that people spend a lot of time at work. You'll love this, but I also believe we need to shrink the work week. I would be willing to bet that people DO NOT work eight hours a day, but more like 4 or 5."

That's why they call it "work....

And now I'm going to need to hire even more workers to try to keep my production levels the same as they are now.

And you still honestly don't think that any of your plans would make products more expensive????

Also...would you please answer these......

IF I am willing to take a job that only pays $8/hr [as I have in the past] without any of the "perks" that you talk about why should I not be able to?

and....

What I would like you to explain is how do you know if a company is charging their customers too much. And how exactly do you decide if a lay-off is justified or not? Each time a company lays off (or actually fires) a worker does the government need to step in and do some sort of study to decide if the action of the company was justified?
 
  2008-04-11 01:59:45 PM  
dottedmint: IF I have to go from paying a bunch of my workers min wage to paying them $15/hr my products will get more expensive.

Stop repeating yourself. You cannot PROVE that raising the minimum wage makes everything more expensive.

I know you say that you will somehow make it illegal for me to pass too much of my expenses onto my customers but you have yet to expain how you would enforce that.

What I would like you to explain is how do you know if a company is charging their customers too much. And how exactly do you decide if a lay-off is justified or not? Each time a company lays off (or actually fires) a worker does the government need to step in and do some sort of study to decide if the action of the company was justified?


Case by case basis based on complaints from employees. Maybe you would get away with being a cheapskate. But if you're a successful company and you downsize after being required to give your workers what they demand, you should at the very least be investigated for violation of a fair practice policy.

So any company that has fewer than 100 employees would be exempt???


If it's a very small business, a lot of what I'm talking about shouldn't have to apply, no. But then again, if your small business makes profits like bigger companies, then yes I would expect you to offer such a benefits package.

My local school district spends almost as much money on "perks" (insurance, retirement, time off, etc) as they do on regular pay.


Not what I'm talking about. And once again they are not "perks."

And you still honestly don't think that any of your plans would make products more expensive????


For about the third time here, you've failed to prove it. And what's more, if a company really wants to "compete" with cheap Chinese labor, they're not going to raise their prices if they want to stay in business.

No, they're going to cut jobs internally and ruin people's lives. They might even pack up, go overseas, or worse, outsource basic jobs they're too cheap to cover.

I support measures that give workers stability and a sense of job security. You have more than proven that you don't.

IF I am willing to take a job that only pays $8/hr [as I have in the past] without any of the "perks" that you talk about why should I not be able to?

Go right ahead. I'm not stopping you. I'm simply saying that a company that pays crap wages while making record profits should have to answer for its unethical behavior. And if it's a company that many people depend on in a community and they're paying crap wages, then the workers have a right to demand better conditions. If they refuse, then I believe they should be driven out of business. Absolutely. They're no good to anyone.

I really don't know why you have to be such a hardass about treating workers like human beings. You're just not getting it.
 
  2008-04-11 03:26:56 PM  
dottedmint: I think taking guns away from law abiding citizens doesn't help anyone except the bad guys.

Hmm, tell that to UK.
 
  2008-04-11 06:35:56 PM  
whidbey:
Stop repeating yourself. You cannot PROVE that raising the minimum wage makes everything more expensive.


Well if you dont mind me having a crack at this.

The final cost of a product is = the cost of material + the labor cost + overhead + profit. The cost of labor will go up with your "labor rights" want. Just the cost for the vacation/sick will increase the labor cost 24% [60 days / 260 (workdays per year)], then you get in the area where you need extra personnel that would be needed to cover for the person off. There is also extra cost involved with HR and training. Can we say a 35% cost? (I think that might be a conservative estimate). If you add your insurance mandate then that bumps your labor rate even farther up.

If you keep the same % profit margin then you get.

Now
(MN + LN + ON)PN=CN

After
(MA + LA + OA)PA=CA

If we keep material and overhead the same and use the after Labor
(MN + 1.35*LN + ON)PN=CA

Do you see the cost addition? Now, all businesses will see this so your material cost will increase and your overhead will slightly. This will increase cost with a static profit margin even more.

Now your contention is that owners will accept lower profits in order to do this. Well some would, mainly small business owners, the large would not. The reason I say this is because SBOs have a connection with their employees while BB does not.

I would not like to see profit margins shrink a LOT. Profit margin is the driving force of business, as in physics if force is decreased then the acceleration of a mass will lessen, dropping profit margins below a certain point will decrease the speed of the economy and slow growth. (I am kinda meandering with this para.)

Now if we increase the pay rates (another example, see above for the direct aspect to product cost) you have more initial discretionary money in the economy. This will allow for more competition between people for goods, this type of competition will drive up cost via a bidding war.

Is this proof enough?
 
  2008-04-11 07:42:21 PM  
Something else that you forgot Saiga410 is that raising the min wage doesn't only raise the min wage.

Let's say I worked at a small company for the last (say....) 5 years starting at min wage and I now make $15/hr. Whidbey gets his "workers rights" passed and the min wage is increased to $15/hr. This now means that a highschool dropout who was hired to sweep floors gets paid the same amount that I do after working here for the last 5 years.

IF I also do not get a pay raise it would be like I got a pay cut because I would have been making substantially more than min wage and then the next day I would be making min wage.....

"Case by case basis based on complaints from employees. Maybe you would get away with being a cheapskate. But if you're a successful company and you downsize after being required to give your workers what they demand, you should at the very least be investigated for violation of a fair practice policy. "

Using that standard you basically are setting every company that downsizes up to be investigated.....

And how would you determine how much my company could charge my customers???

"And what's more, if a company really wants to "compete" with cheap Chinese labor, they're not going to raise their prices if they want to stay in business."

And there are plenty of companies who are already having a hard time competing with cheap Chinese labor. And you want to make it harder for them to compete.

"I support measures that give workers stability and a sense of job security. You have more than proven that you don't."

What's funny is that if you drive all the companies out of business or overseas nobody will have any job security or stability.

"Go right ahead. I'm not stopping you.

Sure you are....

You are mandating that all companies pay $15/hr.

Clearly you don't think that I am able to decide for myself how much I need to get paid to work.

"I'm simply saying that a company that pays crap wages while making record profits should have to answer for its unethical behavior."

I asked you once before and didn't get an answer....

How much is "record profits"?

What would be the % of profit?

"And if it's a company that many people depend on in a community and they're paying crap wages, then the workers have a right to demand better conditions."

They have every right to leave and find a job with a company that doesn't pay "crap wages"....


"If they refuse, then I believe they should be driven out of business. Absolutely. They're no good to anyone."

I suspect that all those people who work for that company, buy products from that company, sell materials to that company, invest in that company, and rely on taxes collected from that company would disagree that they are "no good.

But go ahead and drive the company out of business and see how much job security there is....
 
  2008-04-12 03:55:22 AM  
dottedmint: Something else that you forgot Saiga410 is that raising the min wage doesn't only raise the min wage.

Let's say I worked at a small company for the last (say....) 5 years starting at min wage and I now make $15/hr. Whidbey gets his "workers rights" passed and the min wage is increased to $15/hr. This now means that a highschool dropout who was hired to sweep floors gets paid the same amount that I do after working here for the last 5 years.

IF I also do not get a pay raise it would be like I got a pay cut because I would have been making substantially more than min wage and then the next day I would be making min wage.....


I thought of this but I really wanted a more generic construct for my statement. I could not figure a way to describe the change in labor costs to show the needed shift in wages to keep from screwing the people currently earning about the "new" min wage. Would it be just the addition of delta min, or should it be minnew + minnew(WageCurrent-minC)/minC? This equation would decrease the raise needed to keep the labor rates in alignment of pay/ability as wageC increases, and this would have been hard to generalize.

lets say current wage = $10
current min 7
new min 15

15+15((10-7)/7)= 21.42

Difference of wages against min
10/7=1.42
21/15=1.42

/for those that never took a higher level math, delta is "change in"
//can you tell I love math?
 
  2008-04-12 06:45:40 AM  
"I could not figure a way to describe the change in labor costs to show the needed shift in wages to keep from screwing the people currently earning about the "new" min wage."



LOL Saiga410 you did a much better job than I ever would in describing the change in wages.

I was trying to keep it simple so that everyone (including myself) would not get completely confused in trying to figure out a bunch of formulas.

IF you increase the amount that a company(A) spends on wages that will increase the costs of the products/service that company(A) provides. Then if that company(A) sells products to a company(B) that does not somehow see any increase in wages, company(B) will see an increase in what it spends on materials. This increase in materials will then increase the final cost of company(B)s products.

Whidbeys answer to that very simple fact is to pass laws to somehow not allow that to happen.

The problem is that even if such a law was somehow passed a company would only be able to absorb so much of that increase before it was driven out of business.

Whidbeys answer to that very simple fact is to provide that company with subsidies paid for by taxpayers. The only thing this does is shift who pays for the increase in costs. It does not eliminate the increased costs. It only shifts it....
 
  2008-04-14 05:27:57 AM  
 
  2008-04-14 09:16:45 PM  
biobot would this be the same Mugabe who is kicking white farmers off of their land?
 
  2008-04-15 01:09:51 AM  
Welp, it seems like that line of discussion has died. So what is yall's expectation on the PA primary.

My guess will Hillary 70-Obama 30
RP 80-McCain 20

I fear I might be a little off though.
 
  2008-04-15 07:27:40 PM  
I signed up for a Heritage Foundation e-mailing list so that I can receive a free pocket constitution (ya go ahead and point and laugh). Anyway I just received this email from Steve Forbes asking me to donate to the HF to meet a goal of 20k..... You're a farking multi-multi millionaire.

I just cannot bring myself to unsubscribe because my pocket constitution is so super sweet. That and the WWRD mailers.

Dear Saiga410,


Do liberals seriously believe that raising taxes is the way to prop up the faltering economy? Is taking money out of your hands the way to relieve the financial pinch you're feeling?

If the Left gets its way and reverses the Bush tax cuts, taxes would go up by more than $3,135 per household annually. The overall effect of these tax hikes is clear: slower job growth, less disposable income, and a weaker economy.

Fortunately, taxpayers have a real ally in The Heritage Foundation. Heritage experts helped make the case for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and today they are among the only voices in Washington arguing against raising taxes.

That's why I am proud to support Heritage in its work. And that's why I'm asking you to consider making a gift to support their work today.

Make a gift to Heritage today and help stop tax increases

Not only is Heritage fighting to stop liberal tax hikes, but they're committed to real tax reform that will strengthen the economy and put money in your pocket.

As part of their ten-year Leadership for America campaign, Heritage is pushing for a low, flat, simple federal tax system that taxes your income only once. This is principled reform that you and I can both get behind.

Support Heritage's work on taxes with your gift today

We conservatives must keep taxes from going up. Raising taxes is something neither you nor the nation can really afford. Instead, we must push for lower tax rates that everyone can benefit from.

I hope you will join me in supporting Heritage in this important endeavor, and I thank you for your support for our principles.

Sincerely,

Steve Forbes
Trustee
The Heritage Foundation
 
  2008-04-15 08:58:02 PM  
It's funny Saiga410, I just recently had someone mention THF to me and I intended to check out their site. But then by the time I got home I forgot to look them up.... 'least until you just posted this comment about them. I think I will enjoy checking it out....


Now....

"Welp, it seems like that line of discussion has died."

Unfortunately it does seem like this discussion has fizzled but that's fine. I will continue to point out the fact that any increased costs to a company will be passed onto (primarily) the customers or the workers.

Now....

IF people want to debate some other issue I'm more than ready.....

Some possible topics.....

Should Bush boycott the Olympics?

Is it time for us to end this disastrous ethanol policy?

Should a bar owner be able to allow smoking in his bar?

What does the 2nd Amendment actually mean?

When does human life begin?

Should the "fairness doctrine" come back?

Is school choice unconstitutional?

Should it be legal for two men / two women to get married?

What is the best way to fix SS?

Any other issue you would like to bring up Saiga410?

I know there are other issues out there but these are just the ones that popped into my head.

Maybe Whidbey has something he would like to bring up...

Anyone.....anyone....
 
  2008-04-16 07:52:32 PM  
And yes, we can talk about something else, I really don't care, I've been out and I wanted to at least rebut some arguments...:)

dottedmint: The problem is that even if such a law was somehow passed a company would only be able to absorb so much of that increase before it was driven out of business.

Then maybe they should go out of business is what I'm saying,
particularly if they are a company that does fine financially and still chooses to treat their workers like crap, yea even more so IF they do fine because of that kind of thinking. They shouldn't exist. Not if they leech off a community and send the money to some home office in some other state (or country). I believe that business has an obligation to its community, not just to its stockholders or upper-level management.

I can see you don't care for the playing field to be leveled, you've more than made your point you believe business should hold all the cards no matter what. But what I'm saying is there are a lot of us who still see inequalities, and they're going to continue to be addressed.


Whidbeys answer to that very simple fact is to provide that company with subsidies paid for by taxpayers. The only thing this does is shift who pays for the increase in costs. It does not eliminate the increased costs. It only shifts it....

If it enables workers to keep their jobs and enjoy benefits, then I'm obviously all for it.

Saiga410: Now your contention is that owners will accept lower profits in order to do this. Well some would, mainly small business owners, the large would not. The reason I say this is because SBOs have a connection with their employees while BB does not.

Not really. I would expect them to absorb costs using their overhead budget, or coming up with a long-term plan to adjust for increased wages/benefits packages.

Well some would, mainly small business owners, the large would not.

Well, too bad? And BB should have more of a connection with their employees, that's actually part of the problem.
 
  2008-04-16 09:42:43 PM  
Whidbey "Then maybe they should go out of business is what I'm saying, "

IF you want to drive US companies out of business that's fine but...

Don't complain when the unemployment rate goes up.

Don't complain when US companies move over-seas.

But that's fine.....

They deserve it. Right?

"I believe that business has an obligation to its community, not just to its stockholders or upper-level management."

I'm sorry Whidbey but clearly you have no clue how a profitable company benefits local communities.

First of all.....

Many stockholders are just average citizens of that community.

Second....

When a company is profitable the local community does benefit. They create jobs so that people can spend money at other companies. They create a demand for other goods and services that are filled by local citizens. They increase the tax base.

Your notion that companys somehow don't benefit the local communities is more than a bit short-sighted.

"I can see you don't care for the playing field to be leveled, "

The "playing field" (as you put it) cannot be "leveled" because 1. we are not playing a game and 2. one party provides jobs while the other fills those jobs.

Workers have a heck of alot more power than you think. They are not forced to work at a particular company. IF they feel that they do not get paid enough, have enough perks, or anything else they feel they are missing they can find a job that fills what they feel they need.

"If it enables workers to keep their jobs and enjoy benefits, then I'm obviously all for it."

And that still increases the cost of the product....

It just isn't paid for by the customers or workers....

It is paid for by all of us taxpayers.....
 
  2008-04-17 03:19:32 AM  
dottedmint: I'm sorry Whidbey but clearly you have no clue how a profitable company benefits local communities.

They don't benefit a community when they suddenly decide they can't make as much money as they want by staying. And paying workers what they're worth.

So they leave the area, screwing over loyal workers, some that were at the company for many years. That isn't beneficial to a local community. And don't tell me this doesn't happen.

And I find it puzzling that a conservative would applaud businesses moving overseas and the loss of American jobs when they do.

Workers have a heck of alot more power than you think


Only because many fought, died or went to prison to force big business to make those reforms. Now the paradigm is changing again. You can argue against it all you like, but these reforms I've mentioned here are going to happen.

And that still increases the cost of the product....

It doesn't have to. Maybe some CEOs should take a pay cut, is what I'm thinking.

It just isn't paid for by the customers or workers....
It is paid for by all of us taxpayers.....


Because big business often proves it's too cheap to function as it should. It only goes to show a certain amount of regulation is always going to be necessary.

Like I said, cut the upper-level management for once and stop spreading your Empire so thinly would be the solution. I'm sure you'll agree that entire salaries' worth is often wasted on consultants and other outside sources.

Act locally. The illusion that we can even "compete" with cheap wages from other countries is our undoing. And yet, the big companies cash in all the same no matter who's working for them, and then they cry "poorhouse," lay off/fire a bunch of workers all while enjoying extravagant tax breaks and subsidies. They are the ones who have the power, not the workers.
 
  2008-04-17 07:07:20 AM  
Whidbey "And I find it puzzling that a conservative would applaud businesses moving overseas and the loss of American jobs when they do."

I'm not applauding businesses going out of business or moving over-seas.

I am pointing out that you are pushing policies that would result in that happening.

You are the one who said, "Then maybe they should go out of business is what I'm saying, ".

Not me...

I don't want US businesses to go out of business or move over-seas.

I don't want to enact policies that would drive US businesses out of business or over-seas.

"So they leave the area, screwing over loyal workers, some that were at the company for many years."

And why do they leave? My state has lost more than a few big businesses over the last few years because my state has very high taxes. Companies don't need to stay where they are. They can move to areas that are more economicly friendly to businesses. Those states that these companies move to benefit from my states economic mistakes.

"It doesn't have to. Maybe some CEOs should take a pay cut, is what I'm thinking."

Fine..... How much should a CEO make? And how exactly are you going to enforce whatever 'limit' you think there should be? You going to pass a law that somehow sets 'limits' on what a CEO can make?

"I'm sure you'll agree that entire salaries' worth is often wasted on consultants and other outside sources."

Right....

You have that happening in businesses (as well as government) all the time.

But again I don't know how you are going to eliminate that.

"The illusion that we can even "compete" with cheap wages from other countries is our undoing."

But if we don't try to, companies will go out of business.

IF you keep making it more and more expensive for a company to do business here in the states they will move to where they feel they can find more affordable labor.

"They are the ones who have the power, not the workers."

I have more power than my employer does.

I am offered a certain wage and a certain amount of 'perks' (nowhere near what you think I should have) but it is up to me to decide if my employer gives me enough for my labor. IF I feel that I do not get enough in exchange for my labor I have the choice of leaving and finding an employer that would pay me what I feel I need.

I am not forced to stay where I am.

Workers are not forced to stay where they are.
 
  2008-04-17 03:51:30 PM  
And once again, we aren't getting anywhere. I'm for progress, you're for strictly defending a system that ultimately doesn't serve this country and needs to change.

dottedmint:
I am pointing out that you are pushing policies that would result in [businesses going out of business or moving overseas].


They'll do it anyway, regardless. The difference is that you accept it as some sort of natural progression where there isn't any room for debate or criticism.

And why do they leave? My state has lost more than a few big businesses over the last few years because my state has very high taxes. Companies don't need to stay where they are. They can move to areas that are more economicly friendly to businesses. Those states that these companies move to benefit from my states economic mistakes.

Again, it sounds like you don't care what they do. It could be more "economically friendly" to go to China and pay your workers even less than the American minimum wage just to keep your profits flying high.

They left the community because they were too cheap, is the bottom line. And I believe we have the power as citizens to punish businesses that harm a community by leaving and packing up overseas.

Fine..... How much should a CEO make? And how exactly are you going to enforce whatever 'limit' you think there should be? You going to pass a law that somehow sets 'limits' on what a CEO can make?

Not the point. It just annoys me that multi-billion dollar corporations are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money on pet projects, consultants, golden parachutes and other handouts to their top brass while downsizing. It's a moral outrage, and there should be legal repercussions when they get caught behaving like this.

"I'm sure you'll agree that entire salaries' worth is often wasted on consultants and other outside sources."
But again I don't know how you are going to eliminate that.


I've actually been proposing the solution all along. Stop giving multi-billion dollar corporations so much power. Give subsidies to companies that can prove that the excess overhead is harming them. But you don't want that.

"The illusion that we can even "compete" with cheap wages from other countries is our undoing."
But if we don't try to, companies will go out of business.
IF you keep making it more and more expensive for a company to do business here in the states they will move to where they feel they can find more affordable labor.


LET them. They have no allegiance to this country. Leaving this country and setting up offshore only sends the message they don't give a damn about people or the policies this country has put into law to protect its workers. They should lose whatever tax breaks or subsidies they took advantage of, at the very least.

"They are the ones who have the power, not the workers."
Workers are not forced to stay where they are.

In other words, love it or leave it. No thanks. We, the citizens of this country have the power to make business accountable to its workers and the communities they operate in, and if they don't respect that, then we have the right to tear up their charters.
 
  2008-04-17 09:05:28 PM  
Whidbey "I'm for progress, you're for strictly defending a system that ultimately doesn't serve this country and needs to change."

No.... not really. I am defending a system that does as much as we can to try to keep US Companies here in the US.

You are supporting a policy that puts even more strain on US Companies that is more likely to drive more of them out of business or over-seas.

"They'll do it anyway, regardless. The difference is that you accept it as some sort of natural progression where there isn't any room for debate or criticism."

Actually as I said before the difference is that you are pushing a policy that is more likely to encourage them to move over-seas or go out of business. I would rather do what we can to encourage companies to stay here.

"Again, it sounds like you don't care what they do. "

No.... I would much rather see those companies stay in my state but my politicians insist on raising taxes, passing more regulations, and making life hard on companies in my state. Other states have lower taxes, fewer regulations and do what they can to invite companies to move to their state.

"And I believe we have the power as citizens to punish businesses that harm a community by leaving and packing up overseas."

WHAT????

How exactly do you punish a company once it moves over-seas?

"Not the point. It just annoys me that multi-billion dollar corporations are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money on pet projects, consultants, golden parachutes and other handouts to their top brass while downsizing. It's a moral outrage, and there should be legal repercussions when they get caught behaving like this."

So you want to pass a law that somehow sets standards on what a company can or cannot spend money on????

You are going to have the government tell each company what they can or cannot spend money on?????

"I've actually been proposing the solution all along. Stop giving multi-billion dollar corporations so much power."

That's not really an answer.....

You are unhappy that some companies use outside consultants for diffent projects....

Fine.

You say that you are not going to let corporations have "so much power" but that doesn't say anything.

How do you keep them from using outside consultants???

"They should lose whatever tax breaks or subsidies they took advantage of, at the very least."

And if they already moved over-seas taking away tax breaks is pointless.....

They are gone...

The jobs are gone...
 
  2008-04-18 12:19:19 AM  
Well you know, dottedmint, you can keep hanging on to your antiquated notions of what big business should be allowed to do, which sounds like just about everything they want to do. That's fine.

I've made more than enough good points why things need to change, and why regulation is needed, and these points trump your answers. You obviously fervently believe in a system without bothering to criticize or question its downside.

I don't know if you're just ignorant of the problems, or just don't care, frankly.

The truth is that no matter how low you keep taxes in a state, big business is very likely to downsize anyway, outsource workers and maximize profits without any moral or legal repercussions. I believe this is wrong, and that they have too much power.

You're not going to keep business in this country either, because there is far cheaper labor overseas. So, really, your points are hollow. You HOPE that keeping taxes low and letting business do whatever the hell it wants will keep them happy.

I really don't believe you support any kind of regulation. You ignore history, that when there was no regulation work was a living hell with no set hours, meager wages and no benefits.

You are blindly pro-big business and refuse to see its problems.

It's really difficult having this discussion. It's hard to get across to you that I see your point, but I've outgrown it. There is more to life than letting a bunch of corporations dictate what life should be. We are people, not slaves.
 
  2008-04-18 07:13:21 AM  
Whidbey "I've made more than enough good points why things need to change, and why regulation is needed, and these points trump your answers."

Ah....

They don't trump my answers when your plans would clearly make things worse. worse for the economy... worse for US Companies... worse for workers....

Your reasons do not trump my answers when you propose legislature that is unenforcable.

You say you want min wage to be $15/hr, workers to have 60 days of paid sick/vacation time, employers to provide insurance for everyone, and if I recall you even mentioned some sort of retirement.

This is fine.

All of these are things that can be legislated. YOu can pass laws that require all of these things to be provided.

But where you fall short is when you say you will somehow pass laws to prevent the consequences of those mandates.

You are not going to be able to pass laws that prevent companies from passing the increase costs that you place on them onto (primarily) their customers or their workers.

You are not going to be able to pass laws that will prevent companies from wasting money on consultants, over paid ceos, or golden parachutes.

For the life of my I don't know how you expect to punish companies that move over-seas. They and their jobs are gone.

"You're not going to keep business in this country either, because there is far cheaper labor overseas."

WOW....what a wonderful attitude to have.

'They are going to move over-seas anyways so screw them.'

"We are people, not slaves."


EXACTLY

We are people, not slaves. As free people we can leave any job that we feel is unfair. Nobody is forced to work for anything less than they think they are worth.

IF you drive all of our major companies out of business or over-seas you have not helped workers. You have made it harder for them to find and keep jobs.

Basically I feel that your 'solutions' are worse than the problems....
 
  2008-04-18 06:53:06 PM  
dottedmint: They don't trump my answers when your plans would clearly make things worse. worse for the economy... worse for US Companies... worse for workers....

Your reasons do not trump my answers when you propose legislature that is unenforcable.


I guess I can see past your doomsaying, because I don't believe it. I don't see any evidence that making business more accountable to its workers means economic disaster. None. It's the same kind of fear that keeps the Patriot Act flying. Any sort of action will upset everything, right?

Nor is it unenforceable. It's the law, they have to follow it. If they pack up and go overseas, then it should be made difficult for them to do business here. Taxes or tariffs. Enforceable through existing means or any existing agency. You're dodging the point. After all, how do environmental laws get enforced? Tax laws? Labor laws? And these reforms would be better for workers, not worse. They have job security and a sense of belonging. There is a connection between the company and the worker and I'll bet you the "evil corporation" image would start to fade.

You are not going to be able to pass laws that prevent companies from passing the increase costs that you place on them onto (primarily) their customers or their workers.

You keep forgetting that I am willing to offer subsidies to businesses. I don't mind my tax dollars going towards keeping companies in this country.

You are not going to be able to pass laws that will prevent companies from wasting money on consultants, over paid ceos, or golden parachutes.

If a company does a shakeup and many good workers are let go, all while spending tens of thousands or millions on consulting or other related outsourcing, they should be punished in some way, whether it's a fine, increased taxes or ordered severance pay.

I really can't see how such a punitive measure isn't the right thing to do in such a case. Workers deserve something after years of service.

"You're not going to keep business in this country either, because there is far cheaper labor overseas."
WOW....what a wonderful attitude to have.


It's where it's headed. I'm surprised there are any major corporations still here in the US. There is no law that binds them. And I'm sure they'll biatch about the taxes they have to pay to do business, but I guess according to the surprise in your own answer you must believe that corporations have some sort of loyalty to staying. Or you believe they should.

Yet there's nothing stopping them from outsourcing jobs Americans could be working (far above minimum wage) and there's nothing stopping a company from setting up offshore, all while taking advantage of taxpayer dollars to move their operations, and then continue to enjoy subsidies and tax breaks even after they leave.

And you call my philosophy crazy? I think the difference is that to you, keeping things the way they are means ultimately more money for them. And perhaps you're right. More money.

More money for the top brass while workers get paid crap with no benefits, no retirement package or really bad benefits/retirement package. Not even profit sharing or stock options.

Fine. Well. Enjoy it while you can. I don't see it lasting too long. There's going to be some serious reform no matter who wins the election. There are people behind the scenes fighting for what I've been envisioning here.

We are people, not slaves. As free people we can leave any job that we feel is unfair. Nobody is forced to work for anything less than they think they are worth.

But they do, and your oversimplification is noted. Often people have no place to turn and keep working that crappy job they hate.

IF you drive all of our major companies out of business or over-seas you have not helped workers. You have made it harder for them to find and keep jobs.

Like I said, deals can be made to keep companies here. But you don't want that. Or deals can be made to punish companies that behave unfairly. But you don't want that, either.

Basically I feel that your 'solutions' are worse than the problems....

We're due for a good shakeup. Right now, 1% of the population of this country owns most of it. And they won't budge unless we poke at them just a little.

Hey, ANYONE else want to speak up on this? This isn't ABC and dottedmint and I ain't running for President...
 
  2008-04-18 10:37:18 PM  
"I don't see any evidence that making business more accountable to its workers means economic disaster."

You don't think driving companies out of business would bring about economic disaster?

I do.

"If they pack up and go overseas, then it should be made difficult for them to do business here."

LOL.....

You want to increase costs to businesses....

IF that drives a business over-seas you want to increase costs to them even more....

Fine.....

They will just charge more for their products....

And US Customers would just have to pay more in order to get their products....

Way to go there Whidbey....

You drive companies over-seas causing all sorts of people to be out of a job then increase tariffs on those imports making the products that they sell even more expensive.

And you don't understand how your plans would have negative economic impacts?

"Enforceable through existing means or any existing agency."

Fine....

I lay off 100 of my workers.

Prove that I am somehow unfair about that.

My widgets increase in cost by $2.00 each.

Prove that I am somehow charging too much.

I hire a consultant to evaluate how my company operates.

Prove to me that this is not needed.

I provide my VP a large golden parachute.

Prove to me that it is too much.

I pay myself a huge salary.

Prove that I am paying myself too much.


As I said before you can legislate that I pay "X" and provide this, that and whatever else you think I should have to provide but that's about it.

You are not going to be able to pass a law that says I can only charge "Y" for my widgets or that I can't waste my money on consultants or that I can't provide golden parachutes or lay off workers.

"And these reforms would be better for workers, not worse."

When they get laid off see companies move over-seas and see products get more expensive it is not better for the workers.

"I'm surprised there are any major corporations still here in the US."

And yet you want to put even more pressure on them...

You honestly think any would be left after you get your plans passed?

"Often people have no place to turn and keep working that crappy job they hate."

Give me an example of someone who has no place to turn...

"Like I said, deals can be made to keep companies here. "

So....

Raising min wage, increasing perks, paying workers 60 days not to work, increasing the regulations and everything else you have supported will (what?) cause major companies to come back to the US????

Right???


Oh...that's right... I forgot that you would have subsidies to encourage companies to stay in the US.

Of course I can't help but wonder how much that would cost taxpayers....

I also can't help but wonder if you could provide big enough subsidies to get companies to stay in the US after you get your way.

BTW....

IF you raise taxes on over-seas companies high enough that nobody in the US will buy their product it simply means that they will sell their products in other countries.

Again...

IF you increase costs (taxes or tariffs) to a company (even an over-seas company) those increases will be passed onto (primarily) their customers or workers.
 
  2008-04-19 02:03:25 AM  
When it comes to low level modern manufacturing, I may come off of as a luddite but.... There is no way that a low level manufacturing job in America can compete with foreign labor. I have worked those jobs and I am currently working on the design/manufacturing side to make designs to allow ease of manufacturability. The level of technology for low level manufacturing (I mean this as basic machining that has a tolerancing of +- 1mm, this really is fools play) is so cheap and accurate that the labor side can be done by the least skilled labor. Load parts, push button, remove part, start over. I did this for two years, the skills needed to do this can be done in any 3rd world country with the proper quality controls. The only thing that is stopping a total death of manufacturing is the shipping cost and this is decreasing every day even with energy cost increases. This is what is slowely killing American manufacturing jobs. There is no way we can turn back after the development of NC, the only way we can keep manufacturing jobs is by taking the German approach, that is to specialize our labor force to produce the machinery of production (make machines so that 3rd world countries can make the parts that we need or also to only do the highest quality manufacturing possible.) We can only do this by creating a smarter workforce not by making it harder for our current manufacturing employers. Lets not hold onto the old jobs but lets create the next generation of manufacturing jobs.

On the lowest level service jobs sector, it is the same thing. Push button that matches the item ordered or swipe the UPC tag, enter, type in cash amount, give back displayed change (people that get stymied by that extra bill or coin that simplifies the change piss me off btw.) This simplification of process caused by technology makes the job possible to be done by anyone.

Both of these reduce the bargaining power of the labor force. The answer is only to increase the abilities of the workforce to make them more valuable to the employer, thus making their jobs impossible to move off shore or to be easily replaced. The way to do this is with increased education (the education sector of our country is completely fubar and I am not sure how to fix it, it seems to be both a sociological problem and also an funding problem and addressing only one will not fix it.) No stamping of your feet wanting to add to labor rights/benefits will change this, only a change in our abilities will garner our laborforce the ability to earn them. Creating a hostile environment to business will cause our manufacturing jobs to be moved offshore faster and increase the cost of doing business in the service sector, which will drive inflationary forces.

CEO pay and total profits are easy to rail against but the facts are labor is at a disadvantage because of the rapid change in technology. Now to be against technology is to be against progress, so we must find a way to increase the labor forces bargaining power without giving them undue advantage from governmental do-goodyness.

I fall back to the idea that labor is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. If labor can be bought at a lower rate, why force them to pay more? Applying undue force will only be harmful to business and thus harmful to jobs.

/I tried really hard to no come off as being condescending to our labor force and I know I have
//failed but this is how I truly see the fight between labor and management.
///I hope this adds to the discussion
 
  2008-04-19 01:47:19 PM  
Saiga410 "(the education sector of our country is completely fubar and I am not sure how to fix it, it seems to be both a sociological problem and also an funding problem and addressing only one will not fix it.)"

I think I would have to say that the biggest problem that faces our education system is a sociological problem.

Most school districts are not really suffering for money....

The problem is usually how they spend that money.

As I said earlier many private schools do better than most public schools in educating students while spending less per student.

A major city close to me has a drop out rate of almost 50% (I forget the exact rate) in their public school system. They spend a rather large amount of money per students (larger than many private schools in the area) to try to educate them but they could double their per student spending and not be able to do a better job if the parents of these students continue to not care about the education of their children.

Of course I can't help but wonder how Whidbeys policy would influence how some people think of education....

'I can drop out of school and still get a job that pays $15/hr, provides insurance, retirement, and 60 days that I get paid to not work. So why should I bother to stay in school?'
 
  2008-04-19 05:00:19 PM  
You're going to have to come up with something a lot better than what you're repeating, dottedmint.

Prove that I am paying myself too much.

The proof is that you laid off a hundred workers while keeping your huge salary, courting expensive consultants and god knows what else you feel necessary to spend. You outsourced your company's resources instead of keeping them within the company. It's unethical. Take some of the money away from upper-level management or restructure your taxes so that loopholes or subsidies can be used to save those jobs.

You drive companies over-seas causing all sorts of people to be out of a job then increase tariffs on those imports making the products that they sell even more expensive.

I didn't drive them anywhere. The companies decided that. I only supported laws that would ensure their workers had some sort of job security. I'm talking about companies that still receive corporate welfare of some kind or a hefty tax break, and they still make decent profits.

They're bastards. Soulless, greedy bastards that decided to pack
up. I only exposed them for what they are.



Oh...that's right... I forgot that you would have subsidies to encourage companies to stay in the US.
Of course I can't help but wonder how much that would cost taxpayers....
I also can't help but wonder if you could provide big enough subsidies to get companies to stay in the US after you get your way.


Ah yes, I'm hosing the taxpayers. I'm so EVIL for doing that.

Seriously, if big corporations still feel the need to behave unethically after being offered subsidies and tax breaks to stay in this country, then there would seriously have to be a rethinking of what business means in this country. I don't feel comfortable living in a country where business calls that many shots, dottedmint.
 
  2008-04-19 05:06:36 PM  
Saiga410: We can only do this by creating a smarter workforce not by making it harder for our current manufacturing employers. Lets not hold onto the old jobs but lets create the next generation of manufacturing jobs.

There are still basic needs every worker should have, and there is still very much a discrepancy between who owns the company and who operates it. Many places still do not offer profit-sharing or stock options. Workers are still often considered expendable: cogs in the wheel. Now, I understand pragmatically why this is so, but eventually it gets challenged.

It doesn't matter how "smarter" the workforce is, we will still have the problem of how to define workplace rights.

I think we need to adopt more protectionist measures for our business since we really cannot compete with cheap labor.

And I'm sure that opens a whole new can of worms, because I believe that we aren't putting up tariffs for foreign goods because we owe so much money to places like China.

Places that will eventually have their own labor movements, probably sooner than you think. Then what will the excuse be not to pay workers what they're worth?
 
  2008-04-19 10:03:39 PM  
"The proof is that you laid off a hundred workers while keeping your huge salary, courting expensive consultants and god knows what else you feel necessary to spend."

I think you might be missing my point Whidbey.

In order for you to say that I am paying myself too much money you need to give me a specific dollar amount.

OR....

Are you actually going to say that I can't lay off any workers until I pay myself nothing? I have to bring my salary down to zero before I can lay anyone off???

What?

Am I somehow unable to lay anyone off until my expenditures are brought down to zero?

"I didn't drive them anywhere. The companies decided that. I only supported laws that would ensure their workers had some sort of job security."

Right.....whatever you say Whidbey....

You just push a policy that would add even more costs for companies to do business in the US.

I know....I know....

It would be the company that would decide to go over-seas but the point is that your policies would be what encourages them to move over-seas.

"Ah yes, I'm hosing the taxpayers. I'm so EVIL for doing that."

But you didn't answer the question if you would be able to offer a big enough subsidy that would bring large companies back to the US.


And how large of a subsidy would you need to offer to prevent further companies from leaving the US?


"There are still basic needs every worker should have,"

Hmmm....

I had a job not that long ago that did not pay me $15/hr, have insurance, retirement, and provide me with 60 days that I get paid to not work.

So these clearly were not things that I needed.

And if I am working a job that does not provide me with the "basic needs" that I feel I should have, it is up to me to find a job that does provide me with the "basic needs" that I (well) need.

"and there is still very much a discrepancy between who owns the company and who operates it. "

And you don't think there should be any discrepancy?

Should I not make any more money than the top employee in my widget company?

"Many places still do not offer profit-sharing or stock options."

Well....many do.

But if you work for a company that does not offer these things and you feel you deserve them it is up to you to find a company that does offer these things.

And for the record why should a company be required to provide profit-sharing or stock options?

"because I believe that we aren't putting up tariffs for foreign goods because we owe so much money to places like China."

That may be or may not be why....

But IF we do start putting up a bunch of tariffs on imports other countries can simply start putting up a bunch of new tariffs on our exports.

That helps nobody.....

"Then what will the excuse be not to pay workers what they're worth?"

The problem is that the workers are the ones who should decide what they are "worth".

IF a worker feels that his labor is "worth" getting paid $8/hr with no perks then that is what he is "worth".
 
  2008-04-19 10:43:04 PM  
And now you're just repeating yourself. I've already answered your points, dottedmint.
 
  2008-04-19 11:10:52 PM  
Actually Whidbey there are several of my questions that you have not answered.....
 
  2008-04-20 01:04:52 AM  
No, I believe I've covered all of it, and you're going to have to do better if you really feel the need to keep defending the busted status quo.

You don't even believe workers have any rights. JP Morgan would have loved you.

Perhaps we should just eliminate the minimum wage altogether, along with all of the cumulative regulation labor has fought for in the past 100 years. Let the market take care of it. If people hate where they work, tough crap. After all, we don't want to make our employers pack up and move overseas. The slightest attempt at labor reform will kill our economy.

Never mind that such reforms never have before, facts like that only get in the way of your defending the corporate Code.

I finally understand your position: everything's fair from a business perspective if it makes a profit and how DARE the meager expendable worker demand a better workplace environment. How DARE they?

I'm thinking we should also eliminate the 8-hour day, too. People should work from dawn to dusk. It maximizes profits.

And I can't tell which aspect of fearmongering mechanism of yours is more effective: the fear of big business cutting jobs, or terrorists attacking the US.

It's getting really hard to tell.

And I gotta say it sucks being the only one willing to challenge you. Lurkers?
 
  2008-04-20 02:37:16 AM  
whidbey, I feel you have yet to make a decisive argument that there is a workers right to the items that you are calling for. Without such an argument it is impossible to garner any sympathy in order to change the status quo. I have seen a few arguments initialing "duty" and "should" but nothing that delimitates what there is an intrinsic "thing" that makes what you are calling for mandatory.

I truly believe that a workers right ends at the right to association and contractual rights. If you want to get with your fellow worker and supply a common demand to the employer, fine that falls within the a rights of association. What you are paid and what all other forms of pay fall within contractual rights. When you accept a job you agree with the employer on an agreed compensation package, after that you really do not have a right to any other form of compensation ever.

To your benefit govt control contracts and the forms that they have to follow. The govt can maintain that a contract must contain certain requirements upon each party. This is where we can regulate the interaction between labor and management. I just find it really hard to morally impose my will upon another unless there is at the least a respectable argument that someone is having his or her rights imposed upon. I ask you again to create a rights base argument that the contested labor rights really and truly are rights, and not call these rights as a way to reach to our basic nature of upholding rights even though no such right has ever been realized by society.
 
Displayed 50 of 2661 comments

First | « | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report