HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:03 AM
Who, ME?
dll932's Avatar
Euclid Ohio
Joined May 2005
291 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLittle View Post
Nope. Your revisionist history is forgetting that Hostess was in bankruptcy twice before WITHOUT the baker's union putting them there.
There's also the culpability of mgmt, who agreed to the union demands.
dll932 is offline Find More Posts by dll932
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:20 AM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
United States, MI, Fenton
Joined Jan 2000
8,347 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dll932 View Post
There's also the culpability of mgmt, who agreed to the union demands.
During a time of great prosperity it might make financial sense to cave into unreasonable union demands. In other words, having the factory idle at that moment is costing more than the union's new demand. So, give it to them and get them back to work... That's the union's hammer. As it should be in a time of great prosperity. When an economic downturn happens, well the opposite also happens at places of business. The union no longer has the hammer the company owner does. When you think about it in that way, maybe it was high time there was an adjustment like this. Before this economic down turn, when was that last time that employer's held the hammer?
Mr. Wiz is offline Find More Posts by Mr. Wiz
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Some new engines some older
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:21 AM
In Development Now
Indiana_Geoff's Avatar
Joined May 2005
445 Posts
If your goal is to pay people enough so they can buy your product to stimulate demand... then how do you pay for all the raw materials.

Ford did not pay his people so they could be customers. He drove down the cost of production so he could cut prices so that more people (ford workers or not) could afford them. At the same time he took part of that efficiency and put it into wages so that he could maintain a stable, trained workforce.

Unprecedented efficiency sold Fords, not higher wages.
Indiana_Geoff is offline Find More Posts by Indiana_Geoff
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:30 AM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
United States, MI, Fenton
Joined Jan 2000
8,347 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff View Post
If your goal is to pay people enough so they can buy your product to stimulate demand... then how do you pay for all the raw materials.

Ford did not pay his people so they could be customers. He drove down the cost of production so he could cut prices so that more people (ford workers or not) could afford them. At the same time he took part of that efficiency and put it into wages so that he could maintain a stable, trained workforce.

Unprecedented efficiency sold Fords, not higher wages.
That's always the case. There is no such thing as upping the wages of your employees to the point of stimulating your own economic turn around. What we have in an economic down turn isn't simply a lack of efficiency. What we have is a lack of demand for the capacity we have. There is no magic bullet solution. It's a slow and methodical process that brings demand back which in turn brings back jobs and each feed off each other. That's how it went bad and that's how it recovers. The fun time is when the snowball picks up momentum... in the right direction. We unfortunately haven't been traveling in that direction long enough and through enough deep snow to gain much momentum in that direction. But everything starts somewhere and I believe the indicators are that we are heading in the right direction in many parts of the economy where we haven't been, namely the auto industry and to a much lesser extent, housing.
Mr. Wiz is offline Find More Posts by Mr. Wiz
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Some new engines some older
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:44 AM
Cat Rack
MtnGoat's Avatar
Lyle, WA
Joined Dec 2000
1,478 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyzwell View Post
So I assume you think there should be no minimum wage? Maybe you're right I don't think China has, and their doing ok.

As wages go lower, profits go higher. Wealth over the years has been transferring to the top, which is good for them, but maybe not so good for America as a whole.

Higher wages put more money directly in pockets of more people than government programs do from higher taxes, and may be better for our country.
Every time you attempt to mandate around market forces which you cannot escape, the result will fail. Yes you can force one specific thing to try to reach a specific outcome for that one thing. But....higher wages price people out of jobs, for example.

Another problem with your analysis is the 'one way street' view of wealth which seems to buy into the falsehood pushed by the left that only money is wealth.
MtnGoat is offline Find More Posts by MtnGoat
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:49 AM
It's 5 O'clock Somewhere
RumRunner_1492's Avatar
Dayton, OH
Joined Feb 2006
417 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz View Post
Except that (hypothetically) a loaf of bread is taxed at $45% and a coil of steal is taxed at 20%. The business gets to operate at a lower tax rate than the average guy just trying to feed his family. So you wanna pay less tax? Don't buy that bread. But I'll buy that bread because I made a killing selling my products that I made with lower taxed steel. I know my example is an over simplification but humans being humans, I'm fairly certain something like that would arise. There is no perfect solution.
You don't understand how it works. The coil of steel would be taxed at 0%. Businesses would pay zero federal taxes. Nada, zip, zilch. The loaf of bread would be taxed at about 23% but since companies pay no taxes their costs would be lower as would their prices and since the employee takes home 100% of their income they would have more to buy with. This isn't about having people pay more in taxes. It simply moves all of the taxes to the point of purchase for consumers.
RumRunner_1492 is offline Find More Posts by RumRunner_1492
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:51 AM
It's 5 O'clock Somewhere
RumRunner_1492's Avatar
Dayton, OH
Joined Feb 2006
417 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLittle View Post
Nope. Your revisionist history is forgetting that Hostess was in bankruptcy twice before WITHOUT the baker's union putting them there.
Revisionist? How so? A company being in bankrutcy is not the same as it going out of business. Talk about revisionist.

RumRunner_1492 is offline Find More Posts by RumRunner_1492
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:52 AM
It's 5 O'clock Somewhere
RumRunner_1492's Avatar
Dayton, OH
Joined Feb 2006
417 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dll932 View Post
There's also the culpability of mgmt, who agreed to the union demands.
Lets not forget about who made those demands.
RumRunner_1492 is offline Find More Posts by RumRunner_1492
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:52 AM
Registered User
United States, FL, Eustis
Joined Oct 2012
424 Posts
These comments are in regards to the article posted by the OP.

While I am all for companies paying people more there is not really a way to force it that works. Plus you have to be careful with some of the stats they are throwing around in that article. Often times it includes just the wage and not benefits. Benefits have gone up over the same period that it shows wages being reduced. If you look at official statistics total compensation in terms of cost to the employer has gone up 17% since 2005. Which means the data in the linked article is very misleading. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/eci.pdf

Then you also have an incomplete analysis with associating profit with regulation. Regulation primarily swamps small business. This reduces competition for the big corporations who can pass on basically 100% of the cost of these regulations to consumers. The reduction in competition is also what leads to bigger and bigger companies and the CEOs who make huge salaries. A CEO of a small operation isn't making millions of dollars.

It can't be stated enough how much these large companies actually benefit from regulations. Dodd/Frank was endorsed by all the big banks while the rhetoric pretended like it was going to somehow reign them in.
AustinG is offline Find More Posts by AustinG
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:54 AM
Registered User
United States, FL, Eustis
Joined Oct 2012
424 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492 View Post
Lets not forget about who made those demands.
The real problem is that they were forced to yield to those demands. Laws in place in the Midwest and elsewhere gave the unions a monopoly on labor. Unions are like any other group of human beings. If you give them too much power they are likely going to take advantage of it. Yet they were treated otherwise for some reason.
AustinG is offline Find More Posts by AustinG
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 12:00 PM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
United States, MI, Fenton
Joined Jan 2000
8,347 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat View Post
Another problem with your analysis is the 'one way street' view of wealth which seems to buy into the falsehood pushed by the left that only money is wealth.
In an economic sense what other than money is wealth? Reasources that are generally liquid... What else? I'm reaching here but maybe a knowledge or skill set that can be used to generate money?

From a human standpoint wealth can be happiness. If you're healthy, have people that you love and love you back. If you're doing something you enjoy. That's a wealth that can't be traded and what's more, it can't really be quantified as each person values those things differently. What's the price for happiness? Some very wealthy people would dearly love to have that answer, I'm sure.
Mr. Wiz is offline Find More Posts by Mr. Wiz
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Some new engines some older
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 12:01 PM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
United States, MI, Fenton
Joined Jan 2000
8,347 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492 View Post
You don't understand how it works. The coil of steel would be taxed at 0%. Businesses would pay zero federal taxes. Nada, zip, zilch. The loaf of bread would be taxed at about 23% but since companies pay no taxes their costs would be lower as would their prices and since the employee takes home 100% of their income they would have more to buy with. This isn't about having people pay more in taxes. It simply moves all of the taxes to the point of purchase for consumers.
So in your model businesses are not consumers. Heck, I'll just incorporate then and I'll pay none either.
Mr. Wiz is offline Find More Posts by Mr. Wiz
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Some new engines some older
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 12:02 PM
Figure Nine Champ
madsci_guy's Avatar
North Texas
Joined Nov 2002
1,271 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz View Post
In an economic sense what other than money is wealth? Reasources that are generally liquid... What else? I'm reaching here but maybe a knowledge or skill set that can be used to generate money?
Traditionally, land was considered wealth. In old times, slaves were, in really old times, changes of clothing were.
madsci_guy is offline Find More Posts by madsci_guy
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 12:06 PM
Cat Rack
MtnGoat's Avatar
Lyle, WA
Joined Dec 2000
1,478 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz View Post
In an economic sense what other than money is wealth? Reasources that are generally liquid... What else? I'm reaching here but maybe a knowledge or skill set that can be used to generate money?

From a human standpoint wealth can be happiness. If you're healthy, have people that you love and love you back. If you're doing something you enjoy. That's a wealth that can't be traded and what's more, it can't really be quantified as each person values those things differently. What's the price for happiness? Some very wealthy people would dearly love to have that answer, I'm sure.
In an economic sense, good and services are wealth, and worth *more* than the money paid for them. It really is just that basic.

But recognizing that wealth is flowing *both* directions in a transaction doesn't serve the 'concentration of wealth meme'.

On another level, yes all kinds of things can be counted as wealth, and the distortions and destruction we see around us is caused by those folks who insist on seeing only the monetary portion of it as wealth, manipulate all of society via the State according to their own demands of what wealth is and how it should be 'distributed' by the State, as all the while they claim they recognize there's more to life than money. They sure don't demonstrate this at all when being willing to threaten and harm otherwise innocent people over money.
MtnGoat is offline Find More Posts by MtnGoat
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 05, 2012, 12:11 PM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
United States, MI, Fenton
Joined Jan 2000
8,347 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsci_guy View Post
Traditionally, land was considered wealth. In old times, slaves were, in really old times, changes of clothing were.
Aren't those generally considered liquid resources? I wonder how wealthy a man that owned a hundred acres of desert was considered?
Mr. Wiz is offline Find More Posts by Mr. Wiz
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Some new engines some older
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Is Payroll Tax for Social Security Ending and Will It All Be Paid By the Employer? LcJ Life, The Universe, and Politics 9 Feb 16, 2012 01:39 PM
Discussion Maybe if Obamites paid their taxes we could....... LcJ Life, The Universe, and Politics 5 Sep 10, 2010 04:50 PM
Discussion I miss president Bush, Things would be better if....? Bilbobaker Life, The Universe, and Politics 241 Aug 26, 2010 07:25 PM
Discussion Would NiMH be better if they had more voltage? BowerR64 Batteries and Chargers 3 Apr 18, 2007 02:36 AM
Wanted Green Laser!!(Blue would be nice;) The higher the _mW, the better. Corbin_Dallas Non R/C Items (FS/W) 0 Sep 28, 2006 11:09 AM