Jim Naseum Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Henry Ford was a crypto fascist and a real bastard of a human being. But, he had an understanding of economic principles we don't see in many CEOs today. He knew that he had to sell cars to the masses, and the masses were his workers. Therefore, he had to pay his workers enough to become car customers. The wealth must circulate to create heat. As wages continue down, and credit limits are tapped the economy will collapse. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Henry Ford was a crypto fascist and a real bastard of a human being. I hate to admit it because I love some of his writings, but yeah, he literally employed mobster type of goons that would go around the factory intimidating people. If you screwed up, you could get beat up pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted November 7, 2015 Moderators Share Posted November 7, 2015 Good example just opened up locally. There is a jump park, basically a bunch of trampolines. Kids can pay like $20 to jump for an hour which isn't exactly something everybody can do all the time. The thing is though, there are A LOT of younger people working there for a small area. Probably 10 or so. I imagine they make maybe $8 an hour. Probably open 10 hours a day. That's $800 a day in salaries, which means maybe $1,000 a day including payroll taxes. We're talking about just about doubling this out of the blue, and expecting parents from a rural'ish area to be fine with a very significant price hike to cover it. I can't see it happening, they'd go belly up. Buy them a vintage 3 wheel ATC, probably safer. Or bowling, miniture golf. Better yet, buy them an ipad and let them play video games, then they can hire more Chinese workers for less than 15 a month, to build them. Seriously, there are many exceptions, typically an under 18 exception to minimim wage, and a 90 day exemption, and a farm worker exemption, etc. I don't think the trampoline workers of America have anything to worry about. School Districts and Police Departments on the other hand are probably freaking out, they might actualky have to start out paying people $20 an hour plus benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I think you may be looking at the total employees in McDonald's corporation and all of the franchise operations (not owned by McDonald's corp) combined. Hang on a second, if we're going to decry CEO pay then decry the treatment of humans in general, it almost sounds like you'd like to take that CEO pay and redistribute it to all the minimum wage workers that wear a Mickey D's hat. With this mindset in mind, why are you stopping at 420,000 if you know there are MANY more workers who would continue to receive crap wages? What's the point of mentioning CEO pay if you're fine with this? I'm not sure how you were able to jump to the conclusion from my verification of the information you presented that I'm suggesting the redistribution of CEO pay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Really? You were doing better under Bush? Well here's your chance, you can bring in his brother. Wait, do you even know the inflation rates for the last 7 years, and the 8 years before that? I guess you can juat google "inflation" How about google "quantitative easing". Guess what happens when you create $8 billion a month out of thin air? How about google "Obamacare deductibles". Insurance deductibles are rising at 7 times the rate of what wages are increasing. Premiums have also risen about $5,000 on average. Health care alone is a huge deal, yet, it is not factored in at all in the official inflation rate numbers. How about google "rent price increase". Rent increased 4% last year alone and 14% since 2009. It's rising faster than wages in strong markets. How about google "propane prices". Luckily the free market has allowed the shale industry to make prices drop like a rock as of recently, but look as recently as late last winter, people were paying nearly $6 a gallon for the stuff, which really put a hurting on lots of people. We're talking about $2,200 to fill a standard 500 gallon tank to 80% capacity. I've seen multiple people empty one in a month and a half. How about google "beef prices", which are at record highs. How about google "electricity prices" which also hit record highs this past winter. Google "college tuition" which continues to rise way faster than official inflation numbers. Google "used car price increase", which rose 8% last year alone. You should also know that food prices in general are also not included in inflation data. Around 2011 we had huge increases in food prices and they continue to rise. People have been beat up over it badly and none of it is reflected in your little numbers you are asking me to look up. Gas prices aren't either. Remember that 83% hike we had shortly after Obama started? Yeah, not in the inflation data. Biggest thing saving us now is gas prices due to the shale industry. Edited November 7, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I'm not sure how you were able to jump to the conclusion from my verification of the information you presented that I'm suggesting the redistribution of CEO pay? I can only assume that redistribution is why it was brought up in the first place. Why else would anybody complain that a CEO makes X times amount more than his workers in a minimum wage debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I had a job many decades ago that didn't pay much. After a while I became greedy so I searched and found a job that paid more and I worked that job for several years. After those several years I learned that my job would soon lead to a dead end. So I found a better paying job and worked it for nearly 4 decades. I don't work anymore. Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I'm not sure how you were able to jump to the conclusion from my verification of the information you presented that I'm suggesting the redistribution of CEO pay? I can only assume that redistribution is why it was brought up in the first place. Why else would anybody complain that a CEO makes X times amount more than his workers in a minimum wage debate? Please re-read posts 41, 50, 54, 59, 72, and 158. The posts primarily present data that can be verified and I do not see how you have concluded that any of the posts present arguments for "redistribution" or "complain" about the CEO salary. Once you are finished with those posts, primarily you should be able to notice that I'm trying to delve into the inconsistency in the logic where many have concluded that the minimum wage worker must be complaining (your implication in the post below where you state "nobody complained back then, they just dug in and tried to better themselves), undeserving, lazy, uneducated, doesn't provide the value, etc. vs. the logic that is afraid to question the CEO and assume they must be worth it. I'm not quite 40 but I have been paid $4.25 an hour at McDonalds, and I'm pretty sure that's after it was raised. Seems like I made $3.86 at one point. Nobody complained back then, they just dug in and tried to better themselves. Fast forward a little over 20 years and everybody wants 4 times that amount, indefinitely, in the name of being fair, for literally the same work. That's ridiculous to me. What is the difference between now and the old days? Why was the standard of living better for them? It seems that in many respects the typical worker wasn’t much better educated or even that much more productive, if at all; and in a significant portions of the examples, had not even graduated from high school. Actually, a strong case could be made that today’s worker is surrounded by a multitude of digital gadgets such as retail search engines, mobile inventory devices and controls, and instant checkout devices all leading to great increases in productivity over the old days. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercedesBerater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I'm confused.... So gas, electric, food, rent, cars, healthcare have all gone up. CEO pay, stock market, corporate profits, etc all at record highs... Yet the average American job is being outsourced and those who are left with jobs, make a minimum wage? Something like 48% of America makes a minimum, I forget the real numbers... But it's crazy. So, why is it that of everything in life is more expensive, and the corporations are making record profits- do the workers not get a raise? Worker = minimum pay legally allowed Top management = maximum able to get away with 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercedesBerater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Ok, here's another way to look at this, I'll use my entire career history as my source material. America has a MCDonalds and Walmart mindset.... Germany has a Mercedes-Benz mindset. Mcdonalds pays crap wages for a crap product and reap huge profits.. Same with Walmart. Mercedes-Benz pays insanely good wages and is the wealthiest car manufacturer ever.. Bar none. McDonald's pays minimum wage to flip greasy "meat" and sell it in mass. -- no real ingenuity here. No craftsmanship, etc Mercedes-Benz pays its factory workers on aberage (workers... Laborers.. Not mgmt or ceo's) $65 per hour! They have multiple holidays off, they have an impeccable employee car purchase program. The factories are spotless - you could eat off the floors, the environment is crazy safe. Plus- Mercedes-Benz spends more $ than anyone else on research and development -- and to top that. They GIVE AWAY all safety patents so everyone can be safe. (They could charge billions of dollars for their innovation)The factories are 100% recyclable. No garbage trucks go there... They use all waste. Employees have a 100% match pension plan, Should I go on?? How is it then, that two companies in the production industry... Different end user, I'll grant you they're very different. Can both compete?? And be profitable. And before you say these are different clientele- MB competes against Audi, Cadillac, Lexus, bmw; etc. who all PAY LESS. A LOT less. VWAG = $38 BMW = $39 MB = $65 It can be done... America is just too messed up to think with workers in mind. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 There is an explicit logic to capitalism that leads directly to a winner takes all conclusion. For a look at the process, see the consolidation of airlines, banks, autos, fast foods, retail drugs, brokerage, utilities, oil, insurance, and the internet. This is happening globally, and the effect is accelerating. It's inarguable. As it accelerates, global wealth is moving upward steadily - consolidating. At some point in that process there is not enough wealth at the bottom to drive the nominal 3% growth that is mandatory in a debt based economic system. At that point, with severe concentration of wealth, deflation and collapse occurs. Isn't it magnificent how it all holds together in tandem? Remember when there were some rough times in corporate America and holding companies were spinning-off many of their subsidiaries? On the one hand, endless consolidation is perceived as a threat. Yet, on the other hand, it can't happen. Nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxJPMxx Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 One word; Greed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 W/O having perused the earlier posts I would ask............ in a country with endless career options and freedoms why does any industry require gov't direction on reimbursement? If the service or the product does not sell due to poor service or inability to produce then the company fails. Inherently worker satisfaction become integral to the success of the company. Turnover is a killer in any business. On the other side of that coin are the limitless options available to the individual. Unhappy with where you work? Improve your situation. There are so many options. Real estate agents can earn as much as physicians with nothing invested in college. New immigrants come to America and carve out fortunes because of the freedoms they have here and not elsewhere. Why this cultural failing of our own populace when they are provided access to free K-12 education and unfettered opportunity? So - if a hamburger flipper merits $15/hour............ what do you pay the nurses aid that keeps adults cleansed of crap? There is a wide range of entry level work when it comes down to the nature of the work. The one size mega minimum salary fits-all is simply not fair because all entry level jobs are not mindless, safe and clean. If I clean outhouses I'd better be worth more than hamburger boy. Right or wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Oscarsear, You are expressing the principle features of the classic "free market" where buyers and sellers are free to negotiate any beneficial relationship they choose. This idea presumes a great deal about society that currently doesn't match reality. We don't live in a free market. Not even close. The regulation of business and labor and products and services covers thousands of volumes. If I self study the knowledge to do RN work, can I get a job as an RN? OF COURSE NOT! An RN must be accredited and licensed, and that adds a huge cost burden on a choice. Ergo, the market for labor is not free. Multiply that by thousand of dimensions of regulation and you have a highly controlled highly managed economy and market. "Regulation and Requirements" has a cost of compliance, and that means the rich, whether company or individual, have an advantage to meet the regulation. Right there we created an enormous bias against the poor, the weak, the less powerful. The powerful (rich in resources) naturally use this huge advantage to their favor, and that's what creates difference by class. '"Work harder and improve yourself" and "sink or swim" therefore has limited use. Yes it can work for some, but not all. Pure statistics will bear this out. Eg. If we are playing poker and only I can see the value of every third or fourth card dealt, I will have a statistical advantage that only luck on your part would overcome. Our economy is regulated (rigged) in that exactly that way. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Edited November 7, 2015 by jo56steph74 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Connect the dots: When you play a winner takes all game, the winner will eventually take all. That's precisely what you see in the worst of the 3W countries, a small cadre of ruling thieves and masses of poverty. If you continue to drive wages down for 90M working people, so that a few thousand can increase their wealth from $40 Billion to $40 Trillion, what will the economy look like if not feudalism? Just connect the dots. The U.S. cannot be compared to a 3W country on any level. But I'm interested. Have there been any dynastic level civilizations that failed in the manner you describe? The USA can be compared to a 3W country at the level of GINI Coefficient, indicated a a wealth distribution out of balance. To your second question, your phrasing transcends my hypothesis about the effects in a winner take all economy. First, we are not a reflection of history. This is a new condition, with new rules, new circumstances unfolding. Capitalism is an almost brand new phenomena in the history of mankind. Its realization or end point has never been seen. We are not in a replay of Rome, Spain, or Egypt. This is new and unique. There is an explicit logic to capitalism that leads directly to a winner takes all conclusion. For a look at the process, see the consolidation of airlines, banks, autos, fast foods, retail drugs, brokerage, utilities, oil, insurance, and the internet. This is happening globally, and the effect is accelerating. It's inarguable. As it accelerates, global wealth is moving upward steadily - consolidating. At some point in that process there is not enough wealth at the bottom to drive the nominal 3% growth that is mandatory in a debt based economic system. At that point, with severe concentration of wealth, deflation and collapse occurs. A healthy economy must feature growth at the bottom masses which drive growth in demand. Tom, Dick and Sally, have to have more money each year, not less, which is the trajectory of the last 35 years. The growth which should be organic by wages, has been replaced by offering every higher credit. Interest rates are already at zero. So the debt expansion is nearing the end. The only opportunities remaining for the largest corporations is more consolidation. So, sooner or later, as we near winner takes all, collapse of the US economy occurs. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Well if your premise is that we are in uncharted territory then I'll leave that debate because it's all conjecture. Nobody can say with certainty that we are going to collapse because too few took too much because you have no basis for your assertions as a reference. Conversely, I can't argue against your premise for the same reasons. It all becomes voodoo and witchcraft. Soothsaying. But, there are fewer phrases that stand up under scrutiny than this one: "Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it." To that end, capitalism isn't a new concept and has been around since man discovered trade and sought advantages through those transactions. The term capitalism might be relatively young, but not the concept. Perhaps that is what you meant. With that cleared up, nothing on the face of the Earth is new especially in terms of the types of government. It's all been done at some point and time in the past. We just may call it something different today. My point being, that while the concept of capitalism has been practiced in previous civilizations it has never been cited as the cause their collapse. It's usually some sort of perverted form of government that supplants capitalism that begins their slide. Such as stretching their resources too thinly; taking on too much debt; debasing their currencies. (sound familiar?) Coin clipping was a method used by the Romans to debase their currencies. They actually clipped the edges of their coins in an effort to debase. Romans also reduced the content of precious metals in their coins as another method to debase. We've done this in the U.S. when we stopped using copper in our pennies and replaced it with other less valuable metals. This is a telltale sign that a civilization has reached its apex. You see, nothing is new under the sun. As I said those who ignore history are bound to repeat it. We, as a nation, are ignorant as hell. A good read if you have some time: https://mises.org/library/currency-debasement-and-social-collapse There is some tell-tale mentions of why the populations look for ways to supplant what government (not capitalism), is eroding from them. Edited November 7, 2015 by Bella Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 To that end, capitalism isn't a new concept and has been around since man discovered trade and sought advantages through those transactions. The term capitalism might be relatively young, but not the concept. Perhaps that is what you meant. I disagree. I think you are just referring to "commerce." Yes, commerce and business have been in place since man began trading. That's not what "capitalism" means. Capitalism is a distinct KIND of commerce, with very unique principles of operation, purpose and method. It has only existed for perhaps 200 years. Capitalism features the passive act of making money from money, and the active act of making money by exploiting labor, and the act of private ownership of productive resources. These applied to the overriding goal of "making a profit for the holder of the capital." Create a unique kind of commerce. What is extremely notable about Capitalism is that it is entirely amoral. There is no moral core, or code of ethics which lies at the heart of capitalism. A capitalist business doesn't exist to "do good for people". It exists to make profits, no matter the detriment to people. This is the new idea, which made capitalism a unique historical event. How can a capitalist business, say Joe's Chemical Plant, continue to pollute the very land it sits on, unless there is an amoral purpose behind the business? That same business will hide the effects of dangerous chemicals on its own workers. Why? Because a profit can be made doing that. We have so many thousands of examples of this, that taken as a whole, it is generally referred to as "destroying and poisoning the earth's resources for profit." So, to summarize, capitalism has some key ingredients: -Private ownership of productive capacities including natural resources and land -Exploitation of labor - paying less than labor value -Putting the making of profit ahead of every other human interest - e.g. amorality -Making money form money with no work or effort behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krispy Kirk Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 From a few years ago--- about your incorrect 1969 reference: In 1969, the minimum wage for most private sector workers was $1.60 an hour.(7) That is equivalent to $10.24 in today's money, adjusted for inflation using the CPI. The actual federal minimum wage today is only $7.25 an hour - and has been since 2009. The president's preferred minimum wage of $10.10 an hour would come close to restoring the minimum wage that prevailed in 1969, adjusted for inflation. But 1969 was a long time ago. More than 60 percent of Americans alive today were born after 1969. (8) If the minimum wage had grown in lock-step with growth in national income per person since 1969, it would have reached $16.88 an hour in 2013. (9) Assuming that GDP per capita continues to grow at a modest 2.5 percent per year in 2014 and 2015, the equivalent figure for 2015 would be a minimum wage of $17.73 an hour. That's quite a bit higher than President Obama's proposed increase to $10.10 in 2015. The $17.73 an hour figure is not some kind of socialist dream number pulled from thin air. It is the minimum wage we would have today if we had indexed the minimum wage to overall economic growth all those years ago. A $17.73 an hour minimum wage would be a living wage for the 2010s. In fact, it is almost exactly equal to the $15 living wage demanded by the 2012-2013 fast food industry protests, once you add in 10 paid sick days, 10 paid vacation days, and 10 paid holidays. Thank you for a very rational analysis. It is enlightening. My friends and I were making minimum wage and then a little more over the years, in college summer jobs in the early '70s. By your analysis, which I don't doubt, people coming into the work force now are making less. WMcD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Capitalism features the passive act of making money from money, and the active act of making money by exploiting labor, and the act of private ownership of productive resources. Assuming I agree with this, define for me what is money? then, can you identify another word for the exploitation of labor? then, give me an example of what is meant by private ownership over a productive resource. Now, put them altogether. Are you saying none of these things have existed in past history at the same time, under a single civilization? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W. Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Survey done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.