Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(NPR)   US automakers are rolling in money and production is booming, but for some strange and unfathomable reason they aren't hiring any workers. It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma, a real head-scratcher, I tell you   (npr.org) divider line 108
    More: Obvious, automakers, Center for Automotive Research, IHS Automotive, profit shared  
•       •       •

2250 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Jun 2013 at 11:36 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-19 10:22:07 AM  
I am told that it will trickle down.
 
2013-06-19 10:23:49 AM  
Well to be fair, would you hire an American?
 
2013-06-19 10:27:48 AM  

Mangoose: Well to be fair, would you hire an American?


I would, but I can't seem to get qualified people for starvation wages.
 
2013-06-19 10:58:11 AM  
If they don't need more workers, hire them to do what?  Sit in the cafeteria and get paid to watch movies?

/that actually was the case when production dropped and they weren't allowed to let anyone go
//fark unions
 
2013-06-19 11:23:43 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 12:24:42 PM  
Most employers are acting like a guy who postpones a car tuneup because he's not sure how long he's going to keep the car.  He doesn't realize that the car's going to cost him more money while he keeps it and that it will fetch a lower price when he does sell it.
 
2013-06-19 12:26:51 PM  
Automation biatches!  Suck it, unskilled moochers!
 
2013-06-19 12:27:20 PM  
Nate Silver had an interesting article on this a couple of years ago.  The trend was fairly obvious:  in the last several recessions, manufacturing has cut deeper and re-hired more slowly in each successive cycle.  Automation means that manufacturers just don't need as many workers, so they have no trouble meeting their production demands even after drastic workforce cuts.
 
2013-06-19 12:32:57 PM  
So the terminated the employment of 300,000 people as a result of the economic crisis.  While business is looking positive presently there is no guarantee that it will continue in that manner (who knows when the next bubble pops).  The companies are proceeding with an abundance of caution in hiring on new employees and doing so very slowly so as to not run into the same mistakes again.  Where is the head scratcher in this scenario?
 
2013-06-19 12:33:50 PM  
It's good that their doing profit sharing with current employees and being cautious after bailouts.

But no, subby wants them to wrecklessly hire people. This tab is like the little brother of the politics tab.
 
2013-06-19 12:34:33 PM  
Arg, THEY'RE
 
2013-06-19 12:36:30 PM  
Dear businesses of the nation,

When we, the taxpayers, bail you out -- as we so often do -- we expect that you'll be bringing jobs to the nation to offset that.

You are breaking that implicit bargain. Maybe it's time to let you guys sink the next time the tide washes over you.
 
2013-06-19 12:41:22 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Dear businesses of the nation,

When we, the taxpayers, bail you out -- as we so often do -- we expect that you'll be bringing jobs to the nation to offset that.

You are breaking that implicit bargain. Maybe it's time to let you guys sink the next time the tide washes over you.


You're advocating trickle down economics - that businesses will hire based on profitability rather than the need for labor.

It doesn't work.
 
2013-06-19 12:42:20 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Nate Silver had an interesting article on this a couple of years ago.  The trend was fairly obvious:  in the last several recessions, manufacturing has cut deeper and re-hired more slowly in each successive cycle.  Automation means that manufacturers just don't need as many workers, so they have no trouble meeting their production demands even after drastic workforce cuts.


I don't think automation is the only factor.  Working employees harder also allows employers to forego hiring. Work them too hard and they break; productivity plummets.

The positive connotation of the word "productivity" does workers no favor.  If "exploitation" was up, there might be more concern.
 
2013-06-19 12:46:13 PM  
Hopefully the slow hiring keeps the unions out this time.
 
2013-06-19 12:47:45 PM  
But they can't hire if there's no demand!
 
2013-06-19 12:51:28 PM  

thecpt: It's good that their doing profit sharing with current employees and being cautious after bailouts.

But no, subby wants them to wrecklessly hire people. This tab is like the little brother of the politics tab.


thecpt: Arg, THEY'RE


And arg again. It's recklessly.
 
2013-06-19 12:51:49 PM  

graeth: Hopefully the slow hiring keeps the unions out this time.


Organized capital is good.
Organized labor is bad.

Got it.
 
2013-06-19 12:53:42 PM  
I used to work at Fords's.   Most workers liked getting the OT so they could afford the second house Up North with a boat and jetski,  so I doubt they are that upset about the extra hours.  Hiring more workers will cramp that style.
 
2013-06-19 12:54:09 PM  
FTFA: Production efficiency is up 39% in the last 13 years.

Why do we expect them to hire more people if they don't need them? It's not a farking charity. They're hiring as many as they need to build the number of cars they're selling.

Why is this so farking hard for people to understand?
 
2013-06-19 12:54:21 PM  
So the left lied to me when they stated consumption creates jobs?  It looks like they are producing more product that is being sold.... maybe they were talking about pneumonia
 
2013-06-19 12:54:53 PM  

RobertBruce: If they don't need more workers, hire them to do what?  Sit in the cafeteria and get paid to watch movies?

/that actually was the case when production dropped and they weren't allowed to let anyone go
//fark unions


Those stinking unions put a pistol to the heads of all the management saints and angels.

Grow up.
 
2013-06-19 12:55:37 PM  

fatbear: FTFA: Production efficiency is up 39% in the last 13 years.

Why do we expect them to hire more people if they don't need them? It's not a farking charity. They're hiring as many as they need to build the number of cars they're selling.

Why is this so farking hard for people to understand?


We have to admit to ourselves that we'll never again organicallyreach "full employment".
 
2013-06-19 01:04:43 PM  
So now we are back to pretending the auto industry does not have huge pension and health care debt obligations to mostly now retired former workers?
 
2013-06-19 01:05:52 PM  
I firmly believe that a company will not hire any more people than they need or capably can.

http://gizmodo.com/5678476/the-worlds-first-3d+printed-car-actually- wo rks
 
2013-06-19 01:13:54 PM  

SlothB77: So now we are back to pretending the auto industry does not have huge pension and health care debt obligations to mostly now retired former workers?


There's no pretending about it. Retiree healthcare no longer exists, and pension is now 100% funded by the UAW, salaried employees get neither.
 
2013-06-19 01:14:38 PM  

RobertBruce: If they don't need more workers, hire them to do what?  Sit in the cafeteria and get paid to watch movies?

/that actually was the case when production dropped and they weren't allowed to let anyone go
//fark unions


Playing devil's advocate for a minute here but if production falls and it's not the fault of the factory workers it isn't fair that the factory workers get punished for it.  Should my conscience really be all that bothered if the power balance shifts and the unfairness travels in a different direction?

A pendulum swings back and forth eventually completing a circle.  Am I to get upset every time it swings left and happy every time it swings right?
 
2013-06-19 01:15:35 PM  

tricycleracer: fatbear: FTFA: Production efficiency is up 39% in the last 13 years.

Why do we expect them to hire more people if they don't need them? It's not a farking charity. They're hiring as many as they need to build the number of cars they're selling.

Why is this so farking hard for people to understand?

We have to admit to ourselves that we'll never again organicallyreach "full employment".


We'll never reach full employment if we try to do it based on the economy from 40 years ago.

/This statement has always, and will always, be true.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-06-19 01:17:25 PM  
Until any organization needs to hire more workers they will not, it is not necessary. It has been demonstrated over and over that profit and fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is what matters. If there is a way to profit more, the hiring will resume.

For years we've heard "do more with less" and "improve efficiency", knowing there was someone desperate right outside that would do the job for less if changes weren't made. Training isn't cheap, etc. But now that the orgs see that they survived, their profits are up, and they already know the current workforce is capable of producing profits with the current staffing levels.. there's no need to hire unless it's preventing them for landing more work for even more profits.

Does anyone expect them to go "we know we've overburdened you, department_x. So we're going to hire 4 new people next month and ease up your workload so you can start working 50 hour weeks and relax. Sure, it'll hurt our profit margins and we'll have a smaller shareholder payout for the quarter, but we want you to know you are appreciated here and your needs and sanity are important to us"?
 
2013-06-19 01:17:30 PM  
Fark headline: Auto industry isn't hiring any workers:

Truth:

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 01:20:47 PM  
DGS:

Does anyone expect them to go "we know we've overburdened you, department_x. So we're going to hire 4 new people next month and ease up your workload so you can start working 50 hour weeks and relax. Sure, it'll hurt our profit margins and we'll have a smaller shareholder payout for the quarter, but we want you to know you are appreciated here and your needs and sanity are important to us"?

If you're underpaid for the work you do, then leave.

If there's "someone  desperate right outside that would do the job for less" then you're not underpaid.
 
2013-06-19 01:21:55 PM  

DGS: Until any organization needs to hire more workers they will not, it is not necessary. It has been demonstrated over and over that profit and fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is what matters. If there is a way to profit more, the hiring will resume.

For years we've heard "do more with less" and "improve efficiency", knowing there was someone desperate right outside that would do the job for less if changes weren't made. Training isn't cheap, etc. But now that the orgs see that they survived, their profits are up, and they already know the current workforce is capable of producing profits with the current staffing levels.. there's no need to hire unless it's preventing them for landing more work for even more profits.

Does anyone expect them to go "we know we've overburdened you, department_x. So we're going to hire 4 new people next month and ease up your workload so you can start working 50 hour weeks and relax. Sure, it'll hurt our profit margins and we'll have a smaller shareholder payout for the quarter, but we want you to know you are appreciated here and your needs and sanity are important to us"?


And before we keep going on with that story, auto companies are hiring people and sharing profits with employees. Soooo... Who are you talking about?
 
2013-06-19 01:23:16 PM  

dforkus: SlothB77: So now we are back to pretending the auto industry does not have huge pension and health care debt obligations to mostly now retired former workers?

There's no pretending about it. Retiree healthcare no longer exists, and pension is now 100% funded by the UAW, salaried employees get neither.


what about the employees that are already retired and were promised healthcare and pensions?  did they just get the shaft?
 
2013-06-19 01:24:43 PM  

Makh: I firmly believe that a company will not hire any more people than they need or capably can.

http://gizmodo.com/5678476/the-worlds-first-3d+printed-car-actually- wo rks


Is it because they can (poorly) Photoshop a futuristic "car" into existence?
 
2013-06-19 01:25:32 PM  

The Googles Do Nothing: Fords's


?????????????
 
2013-06-19 01:28:35 PM  

fatbear: If there's "someone desperate right outside that would do the job for less" then you're not underpaid


But the job market is not beholden to a supply/demand curve because that would suggest that people are fungible.  And I am like a unique person and my job is correctly priced at what I demand to be paid.
 
2013-06-19 01:28:35 PM  

YixilTesiphon: The Googles Do Nothing: Fords's

?????????????


They compete with Shevee and Crissler.
 
2013-06-19 01:30:40 PM  

fatbear: YixilTesiphon: The Googles Do Nothing: Fords's

?????????????

They compete with Shevee and Crissler.


It's too bad Purnteeac went out of business along with Slaturn.

/Sounding "Fordzzizzz" in my head.
 
2013-06-19 01:32:42 PM  

valkore: fatbear: YixilTesiphon: The Googles Do Nothing: Fords's

?????????????

They compete with Shevee and Crissler.

It's too bad Purnteeac went out of business along with Slaturn.

/Sounding "Fordzzizzz" in my head.


I really liked sob
 
2013-06-19 01:32:52 PM  

tricycleracer: graeth: Hopefully the slow hiring keeps the unions out this time.

Organized capital is good.
Organized labor is bad.

Got it.


At least people are starting to get it.
 
2013-06-19 01:37:01 PM  

impaler: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Dear businesses of the nation,

When we, the taxpayers, bail you out -- as we so often do -- we expect that you'll be bringing jobs to the nation to offset that.

You are breaking that implicit bargain. Maybe it's time to let you guys sink the next time the tide washes over you.

You're advocating trickle down economics - that businesses will hire based on profitability rather than the need for labor.

It doesn't work.


Um, okay, I'm a little confused. How is saying that we shouldn't bail out businesses that welsh on their implicit promise to deliver jobs "advocating" trickle down economics?
 
2013-06-19 01:40:47 PM  

The Googles Do Nothing: I used to work at Fords's.


I'm assuming not in an executive capacity.
 
2013-06-19 01:47:41 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Dear businesses of the nation,

When we, the taxpayers, bail you out -- as we so often do -- we expect that you'll be bringing jobs to the nation to offset that.

You are breaking that implicit bargain. Maybe it's time to let you guys sink the next time the tide washes over you.


Too bad they aren't hiring.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/06/459857/auto-industry-bri gh t-spot/
 
kab
2013-06-19 02:16:17 PM  

fatbear: If you're underpaid for the work you do, then leave.

If there's "someone desperate right outside that would do the job for less" then you're not underpaid.


I'll take "theories that have no bearing in reality" for 1000, alex.
 
2013-06-19 02:19:33 PM  
Yeah, well, wouldn't that be awesome if people only had to work 30-35 hours a week and everyone was employed and paid well?

Oh, that's right, investors come first.  Lord knows they sacrificed so much....
 
2013-06-19 02:31:13 PM  

Makh: I firmly believe that a company will not hire any more people than they need or capably can.


Change that to "workers". Companies are still top-heavy with "executives" who do very little useful work.
 
2013-06-19 02:32:01 PM  

kab: fatbear: If you're underpaid for the work you do, then leave.

If there's "someone desperate right outside that would do the job for less" then you're not underpaid.

I'll take "theories that have no bearing in reality" for 1000, alex.


I'll take "welcome to reality, whether you like it or not" for $1.59, Fred.
 
2013-06-19 02:40:38 PM  

YixilTesiphon: The Googles Do Nothing: Fords's

?????????????


That is how we talk Downriver (south of Detroit).
 
2013-06-19 02:43:05 PM  

graeth: tricycleracer: graeth: Hopefully the slow hiring keeps the unions out this time.

Organized capital is good.
Organized labor is bad.

Got it.

At least people are starting to get it.


I was being facetious, but please, explain why the organization of capital for the maximum extraction of labor is good but organization of labor for the maximum extraction of capital is bad.
 
2013-06-19 02:44:58 PM  

valkore: Is it because they can (poorly) Photoshop a futuristic "car" into existence?


They could have hired you to Photoshop it, but they didn't have to.  Snerk.  And oh yes, you would download a car.

bingethinker: Change that to "workers". Companies are still top-heavy with "executives" who do very little useful work.


I'm sure if they could get away with it, it would be all automated and just "executives."  No doubt, some will try.  Or just have, one executive and 20 minimum wage peons they cannot replace with automation.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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