100 years ago Henry Ford decided to pay his auto-workers $120 per day wage, turning producers into consumers. (Iraq, ethics)

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by aedubber

Well we have robots now instead of auto workers.

Largely true. I was surprised at how much of the "labor" was done by robots at my last automotive plant tour.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by marcopolo

Hey, that was invigorating!

Here's the legitimate rebuttal: I believe in a system that requires each of us to be of service and value to the rest of society, to such a degree that the rest of society pays us in amounts we may need and desire. This places a high moral and ethical duty on each of us, to be of service, that is lacking in your conception.

No it isn't. You just don't like the ramifications of what I wrote, even though it fully encompasses the relevant moral aspects that you vacuously tried to claim it did not.

Originally Posted by marcopolo

I would tell you that I ...

The fact that you think that your own personal story matters in the context of the general case shows you either don't know much about reality (which is doubtful) or you're deliberately trying to distract attention away from the inadequate arguments you've made for your perspective.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

As others have mentioned, this is actually a perfect example of how the free market, and an employees' job market, can work. We desperately need an employees' job market, not higher minimum wages and more regulations.

Indeed. The marketplace is grossly out of balance, and so something needs to be done to make work more valuable, across the board.

Originally Posted by swagger

But it ignores the governing law, which is the law of economics.

Economics is a social science discipline. Not a law.

Originally Posted by swagger

You can't change that law. You can't amend it. You can't repeal it. And you must live by it. You have no choice.

You can affect it by external stimulus to get it to behave morally, for example.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

I have to wonder though...why did ol' Henry pay his employees so little? If we trust the OPs thread, his employees were paid $15 per hour in today's dollars. That is significantly less than what the auto industry pays today. The difference is even more dramatic when you realize how much more an employee "costs" today, in terms of health insurance, SS, workmans comp and UE insurance, and paid vacation. That person with a $20 per hour wage costs his company at least $35 per hour; given the perqs of the industry, it's probably closer to $50.

Much like today, jobs that require effort and skills, and that demand quality employees, pay far more than minimum wage. No one questions that, even though automation has addressed the hardest and most dangerous jobs. The issue is that the average WalMart or McDonalds drone has a job that is so un-demanding and dumbed down, yet still expect the same rewards as a Ford worker.

[TrapperJohn]

The 100 year inflation rate:

US Inflation Long Term Average


1.032^100 = 23.33

$5 per day / 8 hours = $0.625

$0.625 x 23.33 = $14.58 per hour today, or less than the current non-union plants.

As noted above, no benefits and no payroll taxes!

[14Bricks]

Originally Posted by alphamale

That is not accurate in any way.

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

Ford had no socialist intentions. If anything he was more of an imperialist - believing he himself to be the emperor. In order to receive that wage, not only did you have to work for Ford, but also live the way he thought you should. In fact, he had people come to inspect your home to see if it was clean and organized to his standards, that you were not a drinker, etc...

$5 was an economic boon and it was genius, but it came at a cost.

Originally Posted by Swingblade

Do not know what point the Op is trying to make. Ford used his freedom and choose to pay his workers more. That is a far cry from the gvt forcing employers to pay workers more thru min. wage laws. Also he has to consider that times have changed and what worked in the past might not work so well in the future. Who will benefit more from a increase? the U S or China and other importing countries? Ford did not live in a global economy as of today and if he did he might have choose to not give raises so his company could stay competitive.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Oh brother..

Henry Ford paid his employed $5 a day wages so they would STOP QUITTING ON HIM..
The cost to train his employees cost 2x as much as much as retaining them.

And to earn that $5 a day wage one needed to work there for 6 months, so by time he paid them higher wages, he had already saved more in costs then what he paid them.

It wasnt until DECADES later the bs about them buying cars was invented. If he really wanted them to buy cars, he would have offered them an employee savings account to do so..

Furthermore, it was an advisor that talked him into it, and it took nearly 6 months to do so.. Henry Ford was so anti employees that his wife suggested she'd divorce him if he tried to break up the unions as he threatened to. He viewed them as greedy pigs out to get his money, and this was after he increased their wages twice what they used to be and they demanded more.

[aneftp]

What workers got paid with the auto industry is probably best compared to what common "tech" people get paid the past 10 years.

Pretty easy to get close to a $100k salary with just a little bit of computer knowledge in higher cost areas like SF, NY, DC.

[Rggr]

Then I guess we should just forget about all the companies that have laid off employees or closed because they couldn't afford salaries or benefits.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

Henry Ford was a communist that paid his workers too much. He should've gave them as little as possible, treated them poorly, and kept all the money for himself.

Okay...that's my impersonation of a Conservative Republican for the day.

Stay tuned for upcoming impersonations.

I thought paying people poorly, thus allowing them to collect welfare, stimulated the economy and created jobs? Thats what Democrats said... Are you telling me their right, or wrong?

[AONE]

The simple facts are the upper end wages have massively increased over the labor of the masses. increasing the minimum wage, since none of these twits have Henry Ford's insight, would be an appropriate measure. and I don't care if a ceo does get to double his income next year, let them feel the austerity they have been passing on for years.

[NHartphotog]

Socialism has nothing to do with what private businesses want to pay for wages. Socialism is about Government using the threat of force to extract taxes from the working class, to pay for an equal quality of life for anyone who can't or won't work.