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.
fisheye, you keep bringing up that urban legend that Ford gave his workers "living wages" so they could afford to buy his own cars. That's a progressive urban myth.
He calculated his wage increases to compete in a tight labor market for workers in which he hoped to expect low turnover at his shops.
I am not the first one to repeat that 'myth': Forbes Welcome. The concept still did not hurt my last argument. Forbes states: "Ford’s turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company." So Ford realized the better business decision was to pay more and retain workers - it worked for him and his employees.
How many health insurance companies allowed you to nitpick what you want in you policy. Honestly, I never heard of insurance like that.
_"Obamacare 101: Why do men need to buy maternity coverage?"_
"Americans searching for new health insurance plans under Obamacare are finding they need to pay for coverage they don't want or need. That idea is fundamental to Obamacare."
I am not the first one to repeat that 'myth': Forbes Welcome. The concept still did not hurt my last argument.
Then don't drop the "Forbes Welcome" in your first sentence like it supports the urban legend. You've just evidently learned from it--and others--that it's an urban myth:
Depends on how you look at it. If you look at your employees as criminals who happen to have a job working for you, maybe. If you look at them as people with families and lives outside of work you'd realize after the initial shock people will have a full year to try and figure something else out including changing their habits for the harder times coming up.
Neither. I look at it from a realistic human nature point of view. Most employees will continue to work both at the company and to look for another job elsewhere. But not all employees are the same. Depression, anger, resentment, and a breach of trust can cause even loyal good employees to try to get revenge or get even. What makes the situation worse is these employees have a year or more to dwell upon their fate and possible revenge. These feelings could lead some to drinking and drug use which would enhance these negative feelings and lower their inhibitions to trying to get revenge or get even.
It hurts your arguments up to the moment you were just schooled.
So I repeated a 'myth' and acknowledged I was wrong; what are you going to do: shoot me! It was only one sentence in my post; not my whole post or it's contents. I don't mind a correction.
Depends on how you look at it. If you look at your employees as criminals who happen to have a job working for you, maybe. If you look at them as people with families and lives outside of work you'd realize after the initial shock people will have a full year to try and figure something else out including changing their habits for the harder times coming up.
Harder times? Well; if we're gonna go there, then management all the way to the CEOs NEED to suffer as well. Period.
Pay is pay is pay. This is how many work. My neighbor worked for a place that a large portion of their pay was the bonus they earned at the end of the year. How you are paid isn't important, it's what you are paid.
Quote:
And the UAW does want its claws into Toyota's business but Toyota was smart and their employees are "temp workers" which means no union.
That doesn't really have anything to do with my argument.
The days of high school educated laborers being able to earn 50k a year is over. The quicker that people realize this and retrain themselves for different jobs the better. If your job can be done by an uneducated peasant in a third world country, I don't have much sympathy for you when you lose it. These people should have taken advantage of the educational opportunities available in the United States instead of just going to work at a factory.
I thought conservatives were supposed to be champions of the free market. This is the free market in action. It may cost some people their jobs, but it saves thousands of other Americans lots of money when they don't have to pay jacked up prices for consumer goods to keep workers employed at overinflated salaries. Moves like this are a net good for the country.
Wow, I'm glad to know that we need 170 million doctors, lawyers, judges, engineers, computer programmers, architects, accountants, dentists and other highly-paid professionals.
Not to mention Ph.D.level sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists, mathematicians, scientists, research scientists, government employees and social justice warriors....
Toyota's per hour labor cost is about $10/ HR less than GM and Ford. They do not have legacy pension plans to fund. The cars Toyota builds in the US are for the US market. They don't incur the expenses of shipping overseas and avoid tariffs. I wonder if the Japanese people resent that Toyota offshore so these jobs?
Would I resent Carrier building a plant in Mexico to sell A/C units in Mexico? No. I posted a link that showed that those working for Toyota made more than those in the UAW. Thinking about it, this gap is probably even larger now after the way wages were reworked after the "bailout". You can bet Mexico won't be bailing anyone out.
Places like Carrier move their jobs but still expect U.S. courts to do things like protect their patents.
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.