Giblet: Abacus9: Giblet: Abacus9: Giblet:

So you're saying both sides are bad...

No, I'm saying both "sides" are the same thing.

Obama was picked and promoted by Wall Street. Romney was picked and promoted by Lockheed, Exxon, and pals.

Next election, the sponsors may change or flip "sides", but the goal will remain the same: growing the wealth of a few.

Meanwhile you, and everyone you know, will cheer one of their picks, boo the other one, and wonder why you're making less money and why that money buys less stuff.

You can't fix it. You can't fight it.

You'll try anyway, and I suppose that's admirable.

Gotta try something. I see what you're saying, and somewhat agree, but I don't think most of us moderates cheer too much one way or the other. We just want companies to be held as responsible as their employees.

Gyrfalcon: tinfoil-hat maggie: UltimaCS: giftedmadness: Only in America do people complain about being given free food.

And France. Having the audacity to scoff at cake. The nerve!

Those Russian surfs were also so uncouth, why couldn't they respect the rights of their...Hmmm how does one phrase this in favor of the people owning all the land.

I wouldn't want to be one of those poor Alphas! They have to work so hard and so much depends upon them! I'm so glad I'm just a Beta!

Oh my, I think I am in love, well i knew it was possible but never believed it would happen but now I see. Well granted distance does separate us and soon it may even be legal to marry in you're state thoughI don't think I could go back to LA so we'll just have to stay star crossed lovers that never were or something like that ; )

Giblet: Abacus9: Giblet: Abacus9: Giblet: Abacus9: Giblet:

So you're saying both sides are bad...

No, I'm saying both "sides" are the same thing.

Obama was picked and promoted by Wall Street. Romney was picked and promoted by Lockheed, Exxon, and pals.

Next election, the sponsors may change or flip "sides", but the goal will remain the same: growing the wealth of a few.

Meanwhile you, and everyone you know, will cheer one of their picks, boo the other one, and wonder why you're making less money and why that money buys less stuff.

You can't fix it. You can't fight it.

You'll try anyway, and I suppose that's admirable.

Gotta try something. I see what you're saying, and somewhat agree, but I don't think most of us moderates cheer too much one way or the other. We just want companies to be held as responsible as their employees.

I'm not sure that I know what you mean by "responsible". The company exists to make money. The employees are there to do the same. There exists, under the best conditions, some mutual loyalty in that relationship. These are hardly the best conditions.

Bush and Obama have done everything they can to make it hard to do business in the US. I understand employer's desire to make as much as they can as fast as they can, because the future looks just as bleak to them as it does to the employees.

I had to let six great people go two years ago. I couldn't afford to pay the $75K/yr that it cost then to give them a paltry $42K/yr.

It's worse now, and will get even worse yet. It will not improve in the next decade.

Those of you who are employees: good luck. You'll need it.

If it's so hard to to business these days, why are corporate profits at an all time high?

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Lsherm: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus: Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Is everyone here farking autistic? That's a serious question.

It was an unbelievably dumb question. Here's a better one.

Nurse Jane works in a hospital in Pittsburgh. She brings $300,000 worth of value to the hospital. UPMC knows she can't switch jobs because her mother is very ill and can't be moved or live on her own. Oh, and because UPMC owns all of the hospitals in a 20 mile radius.

Does UPMC have any obligation to pay Nurse Jane enough to eat and keep her heat and electricty on? Or should UPMC pay her the minimum possible, because they know she can't switch jobs?

Do you have any idea how much money nurses make? Choose a different profession for your example. RNs clean the fark up - they make more than engineers in most markets.

How does that make any difference? Jane can't move, and UPMC knows that. UPMC also has a monopoly in the area. Is it OK for UPMC to pay her starvation wages instead of the prevailing wage?

It matters because it's a bogus analogy. Jane can't move, but other nurses can, so UPMC has to pay a market rate for nurses. And RNs don't make starvation wages anywhere. So Jane's not starving regardless of whether she can move or not.

Giblet: I had to let six great people go two years ago. I couldn't afford to pay the $75K/yr that it cost then to give them a paltry $42K/yr.

Want to know how I know you've neither hired nor fired another human being?

Bontesla: Specifically what did Obama do to make it difficult to do business in the US?

You're not going to get a coherent answer on that. (See above.)

tinfoil-hat maggie: Giblet: So otherwise "Derp"
Thanks for playing

Perfection. (And I still say you'd make a fine parent.)

Also, for this idea that companies have to outsource to China or India to be efficient.

Bull.

Keen Footwear bringing production back to the US

Master Lock bringing production to Milwaukee from China

Apple and General Electric returning production lines to the USA

A growing trend in business has been "in-sourcing", taking production back from China to the US to bring manufacturing jobs to America.

The companies interviewed stated several reasons why this is an actual good business move. You see, the lower costs of producing overseas are deceptive, there are all kinds of hidden costs and drawbacks that you don't get with American production lines. Companies saw the lower wages and low/no tariffs and thought it would be a no brainer to build in China, but a decade or more down the line they are seeing why that might not be as much of a universal solution as thought

1. Shipping time and lead time. It takes around 6 weeks for a slow boat from China to bring crap to the Port of Los Angeles. If you need to ramp up production or quickly change a design and get the changes into the marketplace, that's a 6 week (at least) delay, that if your factory is stateside, you don't have. If you have an American factory, you can put things on trucks and have them rolling for stores the moment they are off the lines, without delays on a ship and at port.

2. Quality. Chinese products are known for being, well, total crap. Consumers see "made in China" and their expectations drop like a rock. "Made in the USA" still has market value. It still makes consumers think of quality, and from a marketing standpoint it lets them advertise that they are providing American jobs. In terms of actual quality, that is debateable, but when is the last time you heard about melamine or excessive lead from something built in America?

3. Efficiency. General Electric has found that by putting the design engineers, managers, marketing, and production all under one roof they can make the whole company more efficient. Engineers can visit the assembly line by walking down the hall (not by having to fly across the world). There is zero language or cultural barrier between workers and design and management. If they want to make a tiny change to design or the assembly process to make things more efficient, it can be quickly implemented.

4. IP protection. China is famous for making knock-offs of American designs, they have very little respect for IP. Companies that don't want their products copied illegally are finding that its worth it to be Made in America.

Giblet: I had to let six great people go two years ago. I couldn't afford to pay the $75K/yr that it cost then to give them a paltry $42K/yr.

42K each, I hope. Surely, great employees aren't worth just $7K apiece, even on a hog farm.

demaL-demaL-yeH:
Perfection. (And I still say you'd make a fine parent.)

I still think you're crazy : )

temmerling: I'm only 100 comments in and too lazy (actually busy at work) to read them all, so apologies to anyone who has already posted anything similar...
 
"Just get another job" - UPMC has damn close to a monopoly on healthcare in the region.  They've bought up everybody.  So there are basically no other healthcare jobs available.  Their near-monopoly allows them to get away with paying the wages they pay, as there's no competition. 
 
When a Blue Cross affiliate dared to buy a local hospital, UPMC said that Blue Cross participants (a huge number of people in the region) would have no more access to UPMC physicians.  Which, again, is basically ALL the physicians.
 
I have various family and friends who have worked for the company and the word that everyone has taken to using to describe them is "evil".  (Let's not get into a philosophical discussion of what is "evil" - the point is that that's how people refer to them.)  Many of these folks - especially in my family - are dyed in the wool Republicans who are anti-union, etc.  If they've worked for or had to do business with UPMC in any way, they DESPISE them. 
 
For instance, a friend who is a doctor says he's evaluated on basically one metric - how much new business he brings in.  That's it.  The guy's a great human and doctor but he's no salesman and so he's getting pummeled.  His family ties to the region keep him there (sick family members, etc) and so he says he'll probably give up medicine.
 
This is a monopolistic corporate behemoth in the guise of a non-profit.  They do not give a damn about their workers, the quality of care of their patients (at least at the management level... the doctors are still doctors and I'm sure they care), or anything besides growth and crushing the competition.

maybe they should form a union