U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2017, 06:04 AM
 
2,699 posts, read 3,746,884 times
Reputation: 2862

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Whoa! Hold on there. This is, at best, a chicken and egg question. Were people jumping ship right after they got trained? Or were companies eliminating training because they were the ones who didn't give a crap about loyalty to the employee? I'm sure both were true to some degree, but sorry, I think it was largely the companies that did away with loyalty. They wanted company loyalty when it suited them and then they did away with it when they decided it cost them too much. I don't blame the employees for jumping ship. In general, companies have treated employees as disposable commodities and everyone knows it. Where have you been for the last 30+ years?
I agree with you that many companies jettisoned their loyalty and training programs, but many had to do that to remain competitive financially. (That is arguable also, of course. They could have cut CEO salaries and retained employee incentives, but that is another thread topic, I suppose.) In my lifetime, that appeared to begin when the Japanese auto makers began to import into the USA market better-made cars with lower prices and took large market share from the US auto makers who had grown complacent. Complacent, that is the key word.

You must remember how Nissan (Datsun initially in the US), Toyota, and Honda began importing smaller cars and pickups into the USA and we began to buy them because they were cheaper, better built (less maintenance required), and had better gas mileage. This is the mid-1970s when I was getting out of high school and heading off to college and the work world. Yes, we mocked them as "rice burners", but we bought and those companies are still here. The US auto makers had high-salaried employees who were producing cr@p cars (not all, but many cr@p models: remember the Ford Pinto? Ford Maverick?) and were arrogant. Arrogant is just another form of complacency.

For the most part, we are better off with companies that make what we want and need, at lower prices. If we had remained on the same trajectory, we'd be paying $3,000 for cr@p RCA TV sets that would have been grossly inferior to the ones the Japanese and Koreans would be using.

Now, CEO salaries; that is another topic. Despite having sub-standard products and poor service, somehow US companies have maintained outrageous CEO salaries. And they call it "corporate talent"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2017, 09:08 AM
 
6,815 posts, read 4,408,035 times
Reputation: 11918
For another perspective, consider what's been happening with the "big 3" American aerospace companies: Boeing, Northrop and Lockheed. These are the result of decades' worth of consolidation, from WW2 through around the 1990s. All of these companies were the mainstay and prototype of cushy white-collar STEM-type of professional employment... bright kid does well in engineering-school, earns a Bachelors/Masters/PhD, and gets recruited from the college career-center (or a professor's recommendation) to one of the big 3. Then follows a 35-year career, with a good defined-benefit pension, and retirement somewhere between ages 55 and 62.

This model fell apart only recently. As recently at 10 years ago, the big 3 still offered defined-benefit pensions, albeit watered down and supplemented by 401K-style plans. Now all three have closed their pensions. Older employees remain more or less loyal, even if their pensions have ceased further accumulation. But those under 50 are forced to embrace a different model. Younger employees jump around... from one of the big-3 to another, maybe to a small business, maybe even into government work. Pay is higher for those who jump, and then return to their original employer! Without defined-benefit pensions, there's no penalty in moving around. Indeed, it is almost expected that the better and more vigorous employees WILL leave, go work elsewhere, and likely come back. The ones with least prospect are the most reluctant to leave their perch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2017, 09:33 AM
 
2,215 posts, read 637,111 times
Reputation: 1369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
People do not make more today. The median income is the same as it was in 1970. Upper incomes have increased, lower incomes have declined. If you are looking at entry level, you are lucky to make 60% of what people made in 1970, and the benefits like pensions and free health insurance have gone away.
The stock market used to be a place where the "rich people" invested and it evolved to where anyone can invest in the stock market today. Anyone can invest in the stock market today..yes anyone with an income.

When I was in my 20's I had a "portfolio" of drip stocks....1 share of this, 2 shares of that, etc.
I let dividends get reinvested and allocated $25/month to add. I treated that $25 like a bill to pay.

The problem is many people today don't think of the future. They live for today, they spend for today and "keeping up with the Jones'" has never been more prevalent, even among the poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2017, 04:07 PM
 
3,182 posts, read 2,810,546 times
Reputation: 1855
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Without defined-benefit pensions, there's no penalty in moving around.
Truth.

Circling back to the original article, the outsourcing of lower-pay positions is also in large part a reaction to inequality aversion in a competitive market. People (and managers/execs are people) don't like the idea of paying low-skill workers low wages and having huge intra-company inequalities. Of course, if you have a higher cost structure than your competitors in a way that does not generate a superior product you're in trouble. This then is the dilemma: choose between internal inequality, non-competitiveness, or outsourcing. Outsourcing feels much better than internal inequality and works much better than a non-competitive cost structure so companies outsource. It's generally a worse outcome for both the people doing the outsourced work (they lose the opportunity to rise through the ranks) and the shareholders of a company (who pay a premium over salary to the outsourcing firm).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2017, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
11,039 posts, read 11,450,778 times
Reputation: 17196
Quote:
Originally Posted by skycaller23 View Post
The stock market used to be a place where the "rich people" invested and it evolved to where anyone can invest in the stock market today. Anyone can invest in the stock market today..yes anyone with an income.

When I was in my 20's I had a "portfolio" of drip stocks....1 share of this, 2 shares of that, etc.
I let dividends get reinvested and allocated $25/month to add. I treated that $25 like a bill to pay.

The problem is many people today don't think of the future. They live for today, they spend for today and "keeping up with the Jones'" has never been more prevalent, even among the poor.
I knew an old gal once who was a personal nurse for the McIlhenny family (Tabasco), which is a closely held corporation. Her pension plan was one share a month in a DRIP plan. She was very well to do when she retired. There were about as many long term stockholders 50 years ago as there are today. The were fewer get rich quick stockholders, because the stock market was essentially flat for decades after the Great Depression. My mother benefitted from a DRIP at her employer (Kellogg) where she worked for 20 years and which she let ride for a 35 year retirement because she didn't need the money. When she died the stock was divided between her grandchildren, where it paid off a bunch of mortgages and college loans.

I think the difference is that now we have the internet, where people can brag about how much stock they own. Fifty years ago, that information was kept private.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2017, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Ashland, Oregon
229 posts, read 107,334 times
Reputation: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Actually, the median person doesn't get paid more today when you adjust for inflation.

"they could have got new skills..." kind of highlights the problem. If I see a resume with that kind of grammar mistake, it's going into the trash.
I am curious as to what grammar error you refer in the above sentence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2017, 04:44 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,708,082 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNooYawk2 View Post
I am curious as to what grammar error you refer in the above sentence.
I think it should read, "They could have gotten new skills..."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 08:11 AM
 
6,149 posts, read 1,497,034 times
Reputation: 4474
The argument I get tired of hearing is when minimum wage comes up and so many people automatically say these low end MW jobs are for young people, students working part time, retirees, etc. They do not realize times have changed, its not like this anymore for the most part. Today its older folks working the MW jobs, its mid to late 20s to around late 40s, usually trying to support themselves and a family on these jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 09:31 PM
Status: "Living the good retired life." (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: Wasilla, AK
5,859 posts, read 3,139,843 times
Reputation: 11824
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
The argument I get tired of hearing is when minimum wage comes up and so many people automatically say these low end MW jobs are for young people, students working part time, retirees, etc. They do not realize times have changed, its not like this anymore for the most part. Today its older folks working the MW jobs, its mid to late 20s to around late 40s, usually trying to support themselves and a family on these jobs.
If you are still working in a minimum wage job and you're past your mid 20's, you haven't done anything to make yourself more valuable to your employer. Most who made the minimum wage five years ago have moved up. That's the way it works. I made minimum wage when I was in high school and college. But, like most people, I moved up the wage scale ladder. Because I made myself more valuable to my employer through education and taking on additional duties. That's what most people do. If you think $15 should be the base minimum wage, guess what. When that happens prices will go up, offsetting any gain, and automation will cause even more people to lose their jobs or never even get the chance to be employed. When I was at SeaTac last month I ordered my meal via a kiosk. The next time I pass through there a robot will be flipping the burgers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 11:15 PM
 
8,376 posts, read 7,362,552 times
Reputation: 18229
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Whoa! Hold on there. This is, at best, a chicken and egg question. Were people jumping ship right after they got trained? Or were companies eliminating training because they were the ones who didn't give a crap about loyalty to the employee? I'm sure both were true to some degree, but sorry, I think it was largely the companies that did away with loyalty. They wanted company loyalty when it suited them and then they did away with it when they decided it cost them too much. I don't blame the employees for jumping ship. In general, companies have treated employees as disposable commodities and everyone knows it. Where have you been for the last 30+ years?
The companies do not train for the reason you answered with the employees attitude of job hopping. The companies changed, when they found they were being used to provide training, without the next employer having to train them. Employers changed their attitude towards employees and their future with the company, when they found they were being used to train the employee to work for a competitor.

For a while they tried something. They offered to train an employee if they guaranteed in a contract they would stay on the job for 5 and 10 years depending the difficulty of the training. The government told them they cannot do this, so they gave up and quit training.

It was just announced that IBM has more employees in India than in the USA. This is the extent that a lot of big companies have had to go to, to get loyal long term employees.

On the other hand, millions of jobs have been created by companies moving their manufacturing, and some other fields to the U.S.A. Example: 13 major auto companies building cars in this country. Only 2 of them are American Owned and managed Companies. They get loyal employees, by opening these factories in rural town areas, where the people stay loyal to them, as there really no other real employers in the area for job hoppers to move to. These factories have loyal long term employees, largely because there are no better paying jobs to move to in their area.

Actually these out of the way employers, pay more than the big city companies after the incomes are adjusted for buying power. The people in those out of the way places, get smaller paychecks than the big cities, but when adjusted for cost of living, they can live better than those in the high price areas of town.

Lets look at the facts. This link has 2 tables with about every job you can think of, and all the states and Washington DC. Select the job, and select 5 states. It will show you the median pay in each state, and what the salary will provide as a lifestyle after adjusting for cost of living letting you know which ones actually pay the most.

Salary by State: Where Can You Really Earn the Most?

Note that Texas paid the least of all 5 major centers for this job, but it gives the employee what his/her actual salary is worth after adjusting for cost of living. It is not what you earn, nearly as much as what you can do with that amount of money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top