MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: muwarrior69 on September 18, 2014, 07:28:27 PM
-
http://online.wsj.com/articles/robots-work-their-way-into-small-factories-1410979100?mod=WSJ_TechWSJD_moreTopStories
The comments are interesting as well?
-
well at least robots don't argue, go on strike, etc, but they might call in sick on occasion
-
Wait until the self-driving car hits the road.
Nearly 5 million people have a job called "driver" ... none of them might exist in 20 years.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
-
well at least robots don't argue, go on strike, etc, but they might call in sick on occasion
Some here will blame the workers. First for being fired, and then for being "takers".
-
Some here will blame the workers. First for being fired, and then for being "takers".
first off-some will say, the workers brought this on to themselves, secondly, remember the advent of the refrigerator? well i don't, but many who made their living delivering ice didn't become takers, they retrained themselves and found other trades. the "takers" shouldn't become a lifestyle, but merely an aid to help them get back onto their feet
-
first off-some will say, the workers brought this on to themselves, secondly, remember the advent of the refrigerator? well i don't, but many who made their living delivering ice didn't become takers, they retrained themselves and found other trades. the "takers" shouldn't become a lifestyle, but merely an aid to help them get back onto their feet
Watch the Human's need not apply video. Whereas in the past, new jobs were created when some were removed, this is an entirely different scenario.
In these cases, there will likely be no jobs created when these are removed. There will be no new jobs or new trades.
-
Watch the Human's need not apply video. Whereas in the past, new jobs were created when some were removed, this is an entirely different scenario.
In these cases, there will likely be no jobs created when these are removed. There will be no new jobs or new trades.
This is patently false. I work in the industrial automation industry, and some would say what we do eliminates jobs, but it actually creates new ones. Critical to the success of robots or any other automation process is networking and decision making authority. Find someone with industrial networking skills and you'll find someone with a job for life. Just because people can't understand the jobs that are being created doesn't mean they aren't being created.
-
first off-some will say, the workers brought this on to themselves, secondly, remember the advent of the refrigerator? well i don't, but many who made their living delivering ice didn't become takers, they retrained themselves and found other trades. the "takers" shouldn't become a lifestyle, but merely an aid to help them get back onto their feet
C'mon Surgeon - you were there for the wheel.
-
C'mon Surgeon - you were there for the wheel.
Yeah, and that invention put all the sled people out of a job.....dogs and cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA!
-
Speaking as an engineer, this is just the use of automation to replace a tedious task. It's the never ending struggle to improve efficiency (or in kaizen lingo - muda) on the factory floor. There are new jobs created here. Someone has to program that CNC cutting machine and the pick & place commands on the robot. Also, someone needs to do continual maintenance on the machine & robot to keep them running in top form.
I know of a plastic molding factoring here in Connecticut that "runs by itself" 24/7. They run high volume parts so after someone sets up the multi-cavity molds and loads plastic resin in the injection molding machine they just need to press the button and the automation makes parts, removes it from the machine & trims off the runner and drops it in giant box. Someone just needs to move the pallet when the box is full.
-
mu03eng - I think I just backed up what you said.
-
This is patently false. I work in the industrial automation industry, and some would say what we do eliminates jobs, but it actually creates new ones. Critical to the success of robots or any other automation process is networking and decision making authority. Find someone with industrial networking skills and you'll find someone with a job for life. Just because people can't understand the jobs that are being created doesn't mean they aren't being created.
Do those created jobs require intelligence beyond the capacity of those whose jobs are being eliminated? That's part of the equation. Not everyone can be educated past a certain point.
I don't think it's "patently false" but there may be some disagreement as to the results of alll of it
-
Do those created jobs require intelligence beyond the capacity of those whose jobs are being eliminated? That's part of the equation. Not everyone can be educated past a certain point.
I don't think it's "patently false" but there may be some disagreement as to the results of alll of it
I don't disagree with you, but given the advancements in software and automation, it might not require a ton of advanced training for somebody to operate or even troubleshoot some of this stuff.
If the user interface is designed correctly, theoretically you could have somebody trained, and up and function very quickly.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
I'll put in a third recommendation to watch this video. Your grandchildren are doomed.
As for the disagreement .. sure you need humans to do certain tasks .. I don't think the supposition was "all humans will be fired" .. it was that when you take a task that takes, say, 10 laborers today, and replace that with a robot .. sure there's +1 new job for "robot repair guy" .. but there's a net loss of 9 human jobs.
Meanwhile, 75% of the US population doesn't educate themselves past high school .. and those jobs are prime candidates for automation.
-
I'll put in a third recommendation to watch this video. Your grandchildren are doomed.
Your grandchildren will be fine ... this epic change will be over by then.
That said, your children are at risk. If they don't get at least an undergraduate degree, can divide fractions, write, and think critically, they are hosed. If they don't get at least an undergraduate degree ... then steal a shopping cart and start living under the overpass as the economy will soon have little to no use for you.
-
Your grandchildren will be fine ... this epic change will be over by then.
That said, your children are at risk. If they don't get at least an undergraduate degree, can divide fractions, write, and think critically, they are hosed. If they don't get at least an undergraduate degree ... then steal a shopping cart and start living under the overpass as the economy will soon have little to no use for you.
It is well documented that there a many quality jobs for 2 year technical degrees going unfilled, while many college grads are bartending.
-
It is well documented that there a many quality jobs for 2 year technical degrees going unfilled, while many college grads are bartending.
Companies aren't turning to automation in order to replace workers. Companies are turning to automation because they can't replace workers.
-
Reinko Jr is going into HVAC. People will always want to be warm in the winter, and cool in the summer. Plus our countries infrastructure is so bad, machines ain't fixing the pipes in your house for a long time.
-
Do those created jobs require intelligence beyond the capacity of those whose jobs are being eliminated? That's part of the equation. Not everyone can be educated past a certain point.
I don't think it's "patently false" but there may be some disagreement as to the results of alll of it
Intelligence and education are two different things
-
I'll put in a third recommendation to watch this video. Your grandchildren are doomed.
As for the disagreement .. sure you need humans to do certain tasks .. I don't think the supposition was "all humans will be fired" .. it was that when you take a task that takes, say, 10 laborers today, and replace that with a robot .. sure there's +1 new job for "robot repair guy" .. but there's a net loss of 9 human jobs.
Meanwhile, 75% of the US population doesn't educate themselves past high school .. and those jobs are prime candidates for automation.
The new jobs could be easily filled by employees with a high school degree.....if we start emphasizing some of the technologies in high school. Another tier of jobs would be filled with a 2 year technical degree.
Also, it's not a one to one jobs scenario in terms of lost vs gained but its a lot closer than you think. Someone have to make the robot, install it, maintain it, control it, network it, etc.
This is absolutely a disruptive technology change we are going through but it is no more disruptive than humans have gone through in the past.....we just think it is because we are experiencing it.
On a personal note, I also think the impact is more deeply felt because of a lose of personal responsibility. There seems to be less drive to find a job and more expectation to have a job find you.
-
Reinko Jr is going into HVAC. People will always want to be warm in the winter, and cool in the summer. Plus our countries infrastructure is so bad, machines ain't fixing the pipes in your house for a long time.
There's a little thing called "EPA Certification" that is going to keep Jr. in demand and employable for a very long time.
Even DIYers have trouble with HVAC, not because of difficulty, but because of accessibility. For example, even though I've got all the gauges and know how to properly vacate & refill refrigerant, I can't do a damn thing with my broken humidifier because I can't get my hands on any R-22.
-
Companies aren't turning to automation in order to replace workers. Companies are turning to automation because they can't replace workers.
In some cases. In others, not so much. I'll leave it there to avoid the ban hammer.
-
Reinko Jr is going into HVAC. People will always want to be warm in the winter, and cool in the summer. Plus our countries infrastructure is so bad, machines ain't fixing the pipes in your house for a long time.
The commerce department has a new category they measure ... it is called "factory-less manufacturing." Think about that for a moment. It's about 3D printing and its game changing potential.
Let me say this bluntly, their will be a TON of former factory workers looking for other things to do (as more and more things are made in a factory-less manufacturing method) . They will gravitate toward stuff like HVAC. Yes, we will forever need to get HVAC fixed by Humans, but eventually the supply of those willing, and the increased quality of the new products will make prevent wages in these jobs from ever rising.
-
They will gravitate toward stuff like HVAC. Yes, we will forever need to get HVAC fixed by Humans, but eventually the supply of those willing, and the increased quality of the new products will make prevent wages in these jobs from ever rising.
Yes, and no.
As technology in HVAC gets better, it doesn't really eliminate or even limit jobs because more and more places will need to be retrofitted with updated tech. Lots of old infrastructure still out there.
Think about Solar. Eventually it's going to be cost efficient, and everybody's going to have it. That's a whole new industry not far off from HVAC that's going to explode. Installation, maintenance, home automation, etc.
The pool of trained workers could become deeper, but I don't think these jobs are going to limited by technology, there will just be increased competition to get these jobs.
-
Let's assume for a second that automated driving becomes common-place. Where do all the semi-drivers go? There are already mechanics that know how to fix those "robots". There will be workers out of jobs d/t automation. Will our economy "create" other, new jobs to replace what automation takes away? Maybe. But as of right now, there are industries where humans could be removed and have nowhere to go.
-
C'mon Surgeon - you were there for the wheel.
lol! good one brandy-fire too-you should of seen the look on our faces, crapped our loin cloths ;D
-
In 1900 50% of all jobs were in farms. In 2000 it was less than 2%. Farms in 2000 produce 20 times the food than farms in 1900, with 4% of the workers.
Similar the US Auto industry is set to produce nearly 17 million cars in 2014, the most since 2005. HOWEVER, the auto industry is going to produce the same number of cars this year but with 40% less workers than 2005! More than 90% less workers than 30 years ago when they also produced 17 million cars.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines "large companies" as those with more than 1000 workers. Currently all workers at large companies is a smaller work force than 1980, yet these companies produce 6 times more "stuff" than 1980.
More antidotes .... Reuters now has computer programs that write news stories, they produce more content than ever with an ever shrinking pool of reporters.
Tesla is set to break ground on a massive $5 billion giga factory in Nevada. When Elon musk was asked how many workers it would employ, he said hopefully zero. Raw materials would go into receiving and the final product would come out of shipping and everything in between would be automated.
Finally I wrote this post using the voice recognition on my iPad. Hardly had to type anything and I didn't need a secretary to do it.
Get ready for massive change!
-
The thing that I find challenging is that the rate of change is accelerating. Tomorrow's generation is going to need to be very nimble.
-
Maybe we should encourage manufacturing jobs again, or major pipeline to be built, etc, etc. Many of the jobs lost have been lost because of whacked policies as well. Let's not blame it all on technology. People will adapt.
You want a guaranteed job, become a mortician or someone that works in the tax industry of some kind.
-
Maybe we should encourage manufacturing jobs again, or major pipeline to be built, etc, etc. Many of the jobs lost have been lost because of whacked policies as well. Let's not blame it all on technology. People will adapt.
You want a guaranteed job, become a mortician or someone that works in the tax industry of some kind.
We had many. Then a large number got moved overseas where production was cheaper thereby lowering cost to consumers as well as increasing corporate profits. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too
-
We had many. Then a large number got moved overseas where production was cheaper thereby lowering cost to consumers as well as increasing corporate profits. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too
Yes, and a large number also went away because of onerous regulations as well....EPA, etc. You can't forget those. I spent my first two years out of college working in the engine oil testing industry with clients like GM, Caterpillar, Ford, Detroit Diesel, Cummins and I would travel the US and Europe as we tested various engine oil products on OEM engines. We sourced parts from various foundaries, machine shops, large parts manufacturers like Delphi, etc. Sometimes policies meant to achieve one thing, have a very negative impact on another sector.....and that's being kind.
-
Maybe we should encourage manufacturing jobs again, or major pipeline to be built, etc, etc. Many of the jobs lost have been lost because of whacked policies as well. Let's not blame it all on technology. People will adapt.
You want a guaranteed job, become a mortician or someone that works in the tax industry of some kind.
That ship has sailed permanently. ]
November 1941 (month before pearl harbor) total manufacturing jobs in the US = 12.81 million
August 2014 (latest data) total manufacturing jobs in the US = 12.16 million
We produce 15x more stuff than the month before Pearl harbor with less employees. Restated, we had more manufacturing jobs 73 years ago than today.
As I noted above the US auto industry will make 17 million cars this year, same as 2005. But it will do it with 40% less employees.
Things that are done with your hands are in permanent decline. They are being replaced by robots and computers. Things done with your brain will eventually be replaced too, but that is coming later. Right now, as Elon Musk noted with his Giga factory, he's going to try and do it with zero employees. 3d printing and factory-less manufacturing means we are trying to make stuff with no people involved. Don't bet against it.
-
Yes, and a large number also went away because of onerous regulations as well....EPA, etc. You can't forget those.
Blah, blah, blah.... let's listen to Chicos as he tells (AGAIN) us how the liberals are destroying the economy.
-
Blah, blah, blah.... let's listen to Chicos as he tells (AGAIN) us how the liberals are destroying the economy.
To be fair, there are some regulations that are 1. dumb and 2. have unintended consequences. But there are still a ton of jobs that were taken away due to profit/bottom-line issues
-
To be fair, there are some regulations that are 1. dumb and 2. have unintended consequences. But there are still a ton of jobs that were taken away due to profit/bottom-line issues
100% of jobs are taken away due to profit/bottom line issues. That is the way it should be.
A job that does not produce a profit has another name for it .. charity work.
-
100% of jobs are taken away due to profit/bottom line issues. That is the way it should be.
A job that does not produce a profit has another name for it .. charity work.
How do you define profit? Just financial?
-
To be fair, there are some regulations that are 1. dumb and 2. have unintended consequences. But there are still a ton of jobs that were taken away due to profit/bottom-line issues
I agree with your points. But the majority regulation is there for safety or because of prior abuse. Do plane tickets cost more because of regulation? Of course, but would you trust your safety to a for-profit company whose margin would increase if they skimped on safety? Would you let your grade school kids walk to school if there were no regulations on operating motor vehicles? I could give a hundred other examples, but you get the point.
But greed also has a lot to do with the overall picture. Is it right that the waltons are Billionaires on the backs of minimum wage workers here and child labor in other countries? Not exactly a profit/bottom-line issue. Huge profits would still be there if they sold "made in America" goods or paid their workers a living wage. You and I would not then be required to subsidize their health insurance with our tax dollars.
-
I agree with your points. But the majority regulation is there for safety or because of prior abuse. Do plane tickets cost more because of regulation? Of course, but would you trust your safety to a for-profit company whose margin would increase if they skimped on safety? Would you let your grade school kids walk to school if there were no regulations on operating motor vehicles? I could give a hundred other examples, but you get the point.
But greed also has a lot to do with the overall picture. Is it right that the waltons are Billionaires on the backs of minimum wage workers here and child labor in other countries? Not exactly a profit/bottom-line issue. Huge profits would still be there if they sold "made in America" goods or paid their workers a living wage. You and I would not then be required to subsidize their health insurance with our tax dollars.
You may have misunderstood me. I absolutely agree with what you say here. But there is some regulation that is unncessary and some of it results in unintended consequences. But yes, corporations will do whatever they can to increase profits for themselves, even if that means taking jobs out of the US or fighting against regulations that would result in the betterment of workers' lives.
-
That ship has sailed permanently. ]
November 1941 (month before pearl harbor) total manufacturing jobs in the US = 12.81 million
August 2014 (latest data) total manufacturing jobs in the US = 12.16 million
We produce 15x more stuff than the month before Pearl harbor with less employees. Restated, we had more manufacturing jobs 73 years ago than today.
As I noted above the US auto industry will make 17 million cars this year, same as 2005. But it will do it with 40% less employees.
Things that are done with your hands are in permanent decline. They are being replaced by robots and computers. Things done with your brain will eventually be replaced too, but that is coming later. Right now, as Elon Musk noted with his Giga factory, he's going to try and do it with zero employees. 3d printing and factory-less manufacturing means we are trying to make stuff with no people involved. Don't bet against it.
We could do much more if we wanted, but the costs are too high in this country and whacky regulations (which drive those costs) mean the jobs go elsewhere. Now before some idiot starts saying clean water and air and blah blah scare tactics at me, of course the American people want that. The question becomes at what point does it go too far? At what point does 5 parts per billion need to go to 3 parts per billion and has no recordable environmental impact but means a bunch of jobs are loss as a result. Those are the questions that I believe should be asked and analyzed.
Of course, we could keep building choo choo trains that very few people will ride and cost an enormous amount of money to build and maintain....if one can get into that sector you have a chance on easy street for a while.
-
How do you define profit? Just financial?
Only way to measure it ... any other measure is just trying to argue that charity work is a job.
-
We could do much more if we wanted, but the costs are too high in this country and whacky regulations (which drive those costs) mean the jobs go elsewhere. Now before some idiot starts saying clean water and air and blah blah scare tactics at me, of course the American people want that. The question becomes at what point does it go too far? At what point does 5 parts per billion need to go to 3 parts per billion and has no recordable environmental impact but means a bunch of jobs are loss as a result. Those are the questions that I believe should be asked and analyzed.
Of course, we could keep building choo choo trains that very few people will ride and cost an enormous amount of money to build and maintain....if one can get into that sector you have a chance on easy street for a while.
Oh my, more generalizations from the man from Orange Cty. Time to return to the IGNORE button.
-
I agree with your points. But the majority regulation is there for safety or because of prior abuse. Do plane tickets cost more because of regulation? Of course, but would you trust your safety to a for-profit company whose margin would increase if they skimped on safety? Would you let your grade school kids walk to school if there were no regulations on operating motor vehicles? I could give a hundred other examples, but you get the point.
But greed also has a lot to do with the overall picture. Is it right that the waltons are Billionaires on the backs of minimum wage workers here and child labor in other countries? Not exactly a profit/bottom-line issue. Huge profits would still be there if they sold "made in America" goods or paid their workers a living wage. You and I would not then be required to subsidize their health insurance with our tax dollars.
Is it right that the waltons are Billionaires on the backs of minimum wage workers here and child labor in other countries?
Wow! this says more about you than this topic ... and most of it is not good.
-
Farming.
There is a future in farming.
Good luck, robots...
-
Is it right that the waltons are Billionaires on the backs of minimum wage workers here and child labor in other countries?
Wow! this says more about you than this topic ... and most of it is not good.
That's how some people think. They actually believe that minimum wage workers built Walmart and they would not be successful without those minimum wage workers. Forget those that took the risk, created the jobs in the first place, etc, etc. That doesn't mean the front end workers didn't make a big impact, of course they do, but it's always funny to get into the mind of someone that clearly knows nothing about economics, capitalism, management, labor relations, etc, and it shows every time.
I've said it time and again, MU should require every student to take several business classes because clearly too many are getting out into the open having no clue.
-
Oh my, more generalizations from the man from Orange Cty. Time to return to the IGNORE button.
Choo choo........choo choo
The California High-Speed Rail Authority has already dramatically downgraded its ridership estimates for 2035. In 2008, it promised voters 65.5 million to 117 million riders in 2035. Now it predicts 19.6 million to 31.8 million riders in 2035.
The Reason Foundation study finds, however, that even if the system managed to equal European train ridership levels it would hit just 7.6 million rides a year. Thus, ridership in 2035 is likely to be 65 percent to 77 percent lower than currently projected.
As a result of these slower travel times, higher ticker costs and low ridership, California taxpayers should expect to pay an additional $124 million to $373 million a year to cover the train’s operating costs and financial losses, the Reason Foundation study concludes.
“The California high-speed rail project cannot be delivered at the cost promised to taxpayers, is based upon a business plan incapable of delivering on its legal requirements, and is justified by proponents based upon unachievable benefits,” Wendell Cox, Joseph Vranich and Adrian Moore, the study’s authors, write. “The CHSRA’s financing assertions are virtual fantasy and represent additional evidence that its April 2012 Business Plan sorely fails the test of what constitutes a credible business plan. The taxpayers and the state would be best served by its immediate cancellation.” - See more at: http://reason.org/news/show/study-california-high-speed-rail#sthash.eyWYF1zm.dpuf
-
100% of jobs are taken away due to profit/bottom line issues. That is the way it should be.
A job that does not produce a profit has another name for it .. charity work.
not a fan of confucius eh?
-
How do you define profit? Just financial?
not a fan of confucius eh?
Charity work is very honorable and necessary. I both contribute to and engage in charity work.
But let's not confuse charity work with economically productive jobs. The are different things.
-
I agree with your points. But the majority regulation is there for safety or because of prior abuse. Do plane tickets cost more because of regulation? Of course, but would you trust your safety to a for-profit company whose margin would increase if they skimped on safety? Would you let your grade school kids walk to school if there were no regulations on operating motor vehicles? I could give a hundred other examples, but you get the point.
But greed also has a lot to do with the overall picture. Is it right that the waltons are Billionaires on the backs of minimum wage workers here and child labor in other countries? Not exactly a profit/bottom-line issue. Huge profits would still be there if they sold "made in America" goods or paid their workers a living wage. You and I would not then be required to subsidize their health insurance with our tax dollars.
Your argument is over-generalized and antiquated. Regulation to address the low hanging fruit of past deficiencies has been in place for years. We have now reached the point of diminishing returns with a larger portion of tax dollars used to sustain bureaucratic inefficiency and incompetency. Regulation is no longer the primary driver for industry. Priority on safety and environmental stewardship is driven by interest in protecting employees as assets while keeping in mind that compensation claims, tort litigation and civil court penalties cost more to address than regulatory non-compliance. Environmental and safety stewardship is highly visible in corporate annual reports with increasing attention from a larger proportion of investors. Regulatory compliance is becoming the minimum performance expectation with internal policies based on international standards and best practices.
-
Your argument is over-generalized and antiquated. Regulation to address the low hanging fruit of past deficiencies has been in place for years. We have now reached the point of diminishing returns with a larger portion of tax dollars used to sustain bureaucratic inefficiency and incompetency. Regulation is no longer the primary driver for industry. Priority on safety and environmental stewardship is driven by interest in protecting employees as assets while keeping in mind that compensation claims, tort litigation and civil court penalties cost more to address than regulatory non-compliance. Environmental and safety stewardship is highly visible in corporate annual reports with increasing attention from a larger proportion of investors. Regulatory compliance is becoming the minimum performance expectation with internal policies based on international standards and best practices.
Of course it is. I try to keep posts short so there is going to be some generalization.
I have no argument with what you say in your post.
-
Of course it is. I try to keep posts short so there is going to be some generalization.
I have no argument with what you say in your post.
Wow.
Can you and Sheriff do some marriage counseling for Chicos and Lenny?
;D
-
Wow.
Can you and Sheriff do some marriage counseling for Chicos and Lenny?
;D
Or for Chicos and almost everybody?
-
Oh my, more generalizations from the man from Orange Cty. Time to return to the IGNORE button.
?-(
-
We could do much more if we wanted, but the costs are too high in this country and whacky regulations (which drive those costs) mean the jobs go elsewhere. Now before some idiot starts saying clean water and air and blah blah scare tactics at me, of course the American people want that. The question becomes at what point does it go too far? At what point does 5 parts per billion need to go to 3 parts per billion and has no recordable environmental impact but means a bunch of jobs are loss as a result. Those are the questions that I believe should be asked and analyzed.
Of course, we could keep building choo choo trains that very few people will ride and cost an enormous amount of money to build and maintain....if one can get into that sector you have a chance on easy street for a while.
Costs are even higher in Germany and they are doing just fine. Oh, and they have stricter environmental regulations then in the USA.
-
In 1900 50% of all jobs were in farms. In 2000 it was less than 2%. Farms in 2000 produce 20 times the food than farms in 1900, with 4% of the workers.
Similar the US Auto industry is set to produce nearly 17 million cars in 2014, the most since 2005. HOWEVER, the auto industry is going to produce the same number of cars this year but with 40% less workers than 2005! More than 90% less workers than 30 years ago when they also produced 17 million cars.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines "large companies" as those with more than 1000 workers. Currently all workers at large companies is a smaller work force than 1980, yet these companies produce 6 times more "stuff" than 1980.
More antidotes .... Reuters now has computer programs that write news stories, they produce more content than ever with an ever shrinking pool of reporters.
Tesla is set to break ground on a massive $5 billion giga factory in Nevada. When Elon musk was asked how many workers it would employ, he said hopefully zero. Raw materials would go into receiving and the final product would come out of shipping and everything in between would be automated.
Finally I wrote this post using the voice recognition on my iPad. Hardly had to type anything and I didn't need a secretary to do it.
Get ready for massive change!
And none of those workers got paid more for being more productive for the industries.
-
Costs are even higher in Germany and they are doing just fine. Oh, and they have stricter environmental regulations then in the USA.
Who's "they"?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/01/us-germany-economy-gdp-idUSKBN0GW1GR20140901
-
And none of those workers got paid more for being more productive for the industries.
I beg to differ. As farmers became more productive they made a boatload more. And the wages/benefits to auto workers grew (along with wages/benefits to management) enough to bankrupt America's largest car company.
The real question: if technology is the reason for productivity, should the workers be rewarded? Is the man who watches the machine do what 3 men used to do worth more than each of those 3? Is one night watchman who sits in an office and monitors a large plant by watching TV cameras worth more than each of the 3 who used to have to physically walk the plant? The people who invent/develop/manufacture/etc. the technology are the ones responsible for the increased productivity. Shouldn't they be the ones rewarded for it?
-
I beg to differ. As farmers became more productive they made a boatload more. And the wages/benefits to auto workers grew (along with wages/benefits to management) enough to bankrupt America's largest car company.
The real question: if technology is the reason for productivity, should the workers be rewarded? Is the man who watches the machine do what 3 men used to do worth more than each of those 3? Is one night watchman who sits in an office and monitors a large plant by watching TV cameras worth more than each of the 3 who used to have to physically walk the plant? The people who invent/develop/manufacture/etc. the technology are the ones responsible for the increased productivity. Shouldn't they be the ones rewarded for it?
Lol. You think it was the actual farmers that got the increase in profits? Go look at the actual distribution of the U.S.'s income that goes to the middle class over time.
And yes they should be rewarded. But why shouldn't the people actually producing it (farmers, manufacturing workers) be as well? American manufacturers are the most productive in the world yet their income relative to inflation has gone down. Just because you can pay s*** wages doesn't mean you should. We act like doing this will have no adverse affects. You want a severe underclass? Then keep pushing for all the progress of our economy goes to an increasingly smaller and limited group (which, by the way, generally means to exec management and not to the "inventors").
-
Lol. You think it was the actual farmers that got the increase in profits? Go look at the actual distribution of the U.S.'s income that goes to the middle class over time.
And yes they should be rewarded. But why shouldn't the people actually producing it (farmers, manufacturing workers) be as well? American manufacturers are the most productive in the world yet their income relative to inflation has gone down. Just because you can pay s*** wages doesn't mean you should. We act like doing this will have no adverse affects. You want a severe underclass? Then keep pushing for all the progress of our economy goes to an increasingly smaller and limited group (which, by the way, generally means to exec management and not to the "inventors").
There are real-world examples too numerous to mention where people who worked in manufacturing decided that it was in their best interests to get out of that sector and go into something that was a little more stable over the long-term. Just because you earn s*** wages doesn't mean you have to.
-
Lol. You think it was the actual farmers that got the increase in profits? Go look at the actual distribution of the U.S.'s income that goes to the middle class over time.
And yes they should be rewarded. But why shouldn't the people actually producing it (farmers, manufacturing workers) be as well? American manufacturers are the most productive in the world yet their income relative to inflation has gone down. Just because you can pay s*** wages doesn't mean you should. We act like doing this will have no adverse affects. You want a severe underclass? Then keep pushing for all the progress of our economy goes to an increasingly smaller and limited group (which, by the way, generally means to exec management and not to the "inventors").
Regarding U.S. farmers, I won't argue about who benefits from their increased productivity since I don't really know. I do know, though, that farmland in the U.S.is through the roof - anyone who owns it is in very good shape. You never addressed what happened at General Motors, so I assume you're in agreement with me that the greed of both labor and management brought them down.
I agree with you that these are tricky times. The global economy has made unskilled manufacturing jobs in this country pretty much go away. Minimum wage jobs were traditionally for part time young people or entry level positions that people left behind once they developed a skill set. Many are now in them for protracted periods.
I don't want to get into a long harangue on capitalism vs some other ism or free markets vs government planned economies. I do think, though, that private/public partnerships can work, and if we're ever going to fill the skill gap we'll need a commitment in that direction and an acceptance that it will take some time. Can people check their ideologies at the door enough to accomplish something like this? I'm not overly optimistic.
-
There are real-world examples too numerous to mention where people who worked in manufacturing decided that it was in their best interests to get out of that sector and go into something that was a little more stable over the long-term. Just because you earn s*** wages doesn't mean you have to.
Why do people keep thinking there's some endless supply of better jobs? Yeah, just go try harder! These jobs are not optional, they are vital to the daily function of society. When Walmart employees cost U.S. taxpayers about $6.2 billion a year in public assistance, something is off on the monetary value being placed on those jobs.
-
Regarding U.S. farmers, I won't argue about who benefits from their increased productivity since I don't really know. I do know, though, that farmland in the U.S.is through the roof - anyone who owns it is in very good shape. You never addressed what happened at General Motors, so I assume you're in agreement with me that the greed of both labor and management brought them down.
I agree with you that these are tricky times. The global economy has made unskilled manufacturing jobs in this country pretty much go away. Minimum wage jobs were traditionally for part time young people or entry level positions that people left behind once they developed a skill set. Many are now in them for protracted periods.
I don't want to get into a long harangue on capitalism vs some other ism or free markets vs government planned economies. I do think, though, that private/public partnerships can work, and if we're ever going to fill the skill gap we'll need a commitment in that direction and an acceptance that it will take some time. Can people check their ideologies at the door enough to accomplish something like this? I'm not overly optimistic.
I don't generally disagree with you. At least you don't only blame the workers like too many do, and there's many factors that brought down U.S. automakers (lack of ingenuity as foreign cars flooded the market is one).
Agree completely on the last point. If you believe there is one -ism that fixes everything, you will fail spectacularly. One solution cannot fix all our problems.
-
Decades of lousy management brought down GM. Not one factory worker was responsible for the Aztek. Or having the Cavalier go 20 years without changing the platform. Or the Ion. Or the Celebrity's, Malibu's Malibu Maxx's, Alero's. Not one of the 26 million GM cars that have been recalled are due to something one of the workers on the assembly line did. Magagement decisions, one and all. The UAW isn't blameless. They did become bloated, they did demand too much. They weren't pro-active looking for ways to improve the product. But those are sprinkles on the 7 layer cake of what went wrong at GM. Read Bob Lutz' about it sometime.
-
Or having the Cavalier go 20 years without changing the platform.
The University of Dayton thanks them for that.
-
Why do people keep thinking there's some endless supply of better jobs? Yeah, just go try harder! These jobs are not optional, they are vital to the daily function of society. When Walmart employees cost U.S. taxpayers about $6.2 billion a year in public assistance, something is off on the monetary value being placed on those jobs.
So are you saying Walmart's existence is vital to the daily function of society? Or are you saying we need to stop paying public assistance to people who are already employed?
-
So are you saying Walmart's existence is vital to the daily function of society? Or are you saying we need to stop paying public assistance to people who are already employed?
I'm saying maybe Walmart shouldn't be allowed to pay their employees an amount so little that they cannot actually live on it. We are subsidizing their profits in essence.
Also, yes if every retail employee in the country stopped working, that would ground the country to a halt. Same with most large labor groups/industries.
-
I'm saying maybe Walmart shouldn't be allowed to pay their employees an amount so little that they cannot actually live on it. We are subsidizing their profits in essence.
Also, yes if every retail employee in the country stopped working, that would ground the country to a halt. Same with most large labor groups/industries.
Just out of curiosity, what would the minimum wage have to be for a family of 4 with one person employed working 40 hours for that family to not receive any government assistance? Honest question.
-
Doesn't matter about Walmart, they are being killed, like the rest of the retailers, by online shopping.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-21/retail-store-closures-soar-2014-highest-pace-lehman-collapse
Since the start of 2014, retailers have announced the closure of more than 2,400 units, amounting to 22.6 million square feet, more than double the closures at this point in 2013 (940 units and 6.9 million square feet). After several years of attempting to cut overhead costs, the acceleration in store closures appears to be a response on the part of retailers to cope with the challenge of ecommerce and structural declines in foot traffic, and the need to address declining levels of in-store productivity. The year-to-date totals for store closing activities now challenges 2009 as the most recent year for the highest number of store closings announcements.
------------
More of the same, we are in a mad scramble to do more with less people. People are too expensive and raising the minimum wage just accelerates this process.
-
I'm saying maybe Walmart shouldn't be allowed to pay their employees an amount so little that they cannot actually live on it. We are subsidizing their profits in essence.
Also, yes if every retail employee in the country stopped working, that would ground the country to a halt. Same with most large labor groups/industries.
They don't. They START them at minimum wage and then if the show they are good at what they do and responsible to show up and work and pass their drug test, they get a raise, and then another and another.
If you believe that day one everyone must START with enough money to raise a family of 4 (about $15/hour) then you are dooming all unskilled workers to a permanent underclass (which they might be part of anyway). Not everyone is qualified before a day of work to make enough to raise a family of four. That must be proven over time (like when you're 18 to 22).
-
I'm saying maybe Walmart shouldn't be allowed to pay their employees an amount so little that they cannot actually live on it. We are subsidizing their profits in essence.
Also, yes if every retail employee in the country stopped working, that would ground the country to a halt. Same with most large labor groups/industries.
What is the appropriate amount of money to live on and what is the skill set/capability that an employee must exhibit to receive that wage?
Not being flippant, but you have to define that....additionally, you want to see Walmart or McDonald's jobs go away, raise the wage to make it more attractive for those companies to automate. Fast food restaurants no longer (in most but not all) take orders onsite through the drive through....that's actually a call center you are talking to.
-
So are you saying Walmart's existence is vital to the daily function of society? Or are you saying we need to stop paying public assistance to people who are already employed?
Maybe he's saying that employers who pay their employees so little that they need public assistance (money that you and I give to the gov't) to survive even though they work full-time should be among the richest people in the entire world.
You may not mind having your taxes make the Walton family richer. I do.
-
What is the appropriate amount of money to live on and what is the skill set/capability that an employee must exhibit to receive that wage?
Not being flippant, but you have to define that....additionally, you want to see Walmart or McDonald's jobs go away, raise the wage to make it more attractive for those companies to automate. Fast food restaurants no longer (in most but not all) take orders onsite through the drive through....that's actually a call center you are talking to.
There is no proven evidence for this myth capitalism-purists trot out freaking every time. None.
-
They don't. They START them at minimum wage and then if the show they are good at what they do and responsible to show up and work and pass their drug test, they get a raise, and then another and another.
If you believe that day one everyone must START with enough money to raise a family of 4 (about $15/hour) then you are dooming all unskilled workers to a permanent underclass (which they might be part of anyway). Not everyone is qualified before a day of work to make enough to raise a family of four. That must be proven over time (like when you're 18 to 22).
It's amazing that you really believe this. Raises? Hah. Actual benefits? Hah.
-
There is no proven evidence for this myth capitalism-purists trot out freaking every time. None.
Not quite true!
http://www.cnet.com/news/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/
-
There is no proven evidence for this myth capitalism-purists trot out freaking every time. None.
Does this count as evidence? http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/vendor-takes-shot-at-offering-self-serve-beer-in-miller-park-b99333130z1-271750411.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/vendor-takes-shot-at-offering-self-serve-beer-in-miller-park-b99333130z1-271750411.html)
-
There is no proven evidence for this myth capitalism-purists trot out freaking every time. None.
I'm confused as to how you think this is a myth. Car manufacturing has automated, why couldn't McDonalds? Look at the grocery store, there are now self-service check outs, doesn't that count as automation?
Look into RFID some time. Want to really automate a grocery store, make labor expensive enough to equal the cost of RFID scanners and RFID tags on product
http://www.rfidarena.com/2013/4/2/item-level-tagging-in-the-grocery-industry-are-we-there-yet.aspx (http://www.rfidarena.com/2013/4/2/item-level-tagging-in-the-grocery-industry-are-we-there-yet.aspx)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNGiTGyQzk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNGiTGyQzk)
-
I'm confused as to how you think this is a myth. Car manufacturing has automated, why couldn't McDonalds? Look at the grocery store, there are now self-service check outs, doesn't that count as automation?
Look into RFID some time. Want to really automate a grocery store, make labor expensive enough to equal the cost of RFID scanners and RFID tags on product
http://www.rfidarena.com/2013/4/2/item-level-tagging-in-the-grocery-industry-are-we-there-yet.aspx (http://www.rfidarena.com/2013/4/2/item-level-tagging-in-the-grocery-industry-are-we-there-yet.aspx)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNGiTGyQzk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNGiTGyQzk)
I was more referring to the idea that raising minimum-wage increases unemployment, which has been disproven over and over again. This is mainly due to the fact that people at the lower end of the economic spectrum put more of the extra money they receive back into the economy - especially locally.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPISmallBusinessMinWage.pdf
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-21/higher-minimum-wage-small-business-doesnt-mind
-
Does this count as evidence? http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/vendor-takes-shot-at-offering-self-serve-beer-in-miller-park-b99333130z1-271750411.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/vendor-takes-shot-at-offering-self-serve-beer-in-miller-park-b99333130z1-271750411.html)
No, because they're already doing it. This is happening absent a minimum wage raise.
-
There is always a breaking point for automation vs human labor.
China still does a lot of road construction by hand, because labor is cheap, and almost unlimited. Heavy equipment is expensive.
You can't afford that in the US, man-power is just too expensive. You're way better off getting heavy equipment that can do the work of 50 men.
What does this mean for the future of labor? I don't really know... but I can tell you this cycle has been going on in the US since the industrial revolution.
-
I was more referring to the idea that raising minimum-wage increases unemployment, which has been disproven over and over again. This is mainly due to the fact that people at the lower end of the economic spectrum put more of the extra money they receive back into the economy - especially locally.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPISmallBusinessMinWage.pdf
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-21/higher-minimum-wage-small-business-doesnt-mind
But MU03eng's contention is that if the government mandates higher minimum wages it will lead companies to automate which will not be good for anyone especially the low wage earners. I don't like it any more than you do. Though I like the convenience of online shopping, banking etc. I do miss that personal interaction between human beings.
-
No, because they're already doing it. This is happening absent a minimum wage raise.
by that statement, then it is(automation) is going to continue. just as the refrigerator caused the loss of ice makers and ice delivery people, automation should give rise to other jobs. maintenance, information tech., manufacturing to some extent of said automation products, etc. this will also necessitate the need for more education, teachers...in these areas. may the best man/woman/person win. you can try to fight it, disagree with it all you want, but automation is reality.
p.s. walmarts health insurance is better than obamacare and that is worth money. many people are trying to get a job with them just for the healthcare alone
-
p.s. walmarts health insurance is better than obamacare and that is worth money. many people are trying to get a job with them just for the healthcare alone
Not sure how you can make such a claim when Obamacare is merely a collection of state exchanges or marketplaces with many different tiers of plans by many different providers. Some exchanges have more options than others, and some providers are better than others.
So saying one company's health insurance plan is better than this is basically a nonsensical statement.
-
I would like to point out that these minimum wage jobs and other entry level positions were NEVER meant to be full-time, life-long jobs that people were supposed to be supporting a family on. When other sources of employment dried up, unskilled workers were forced down into these positions that should be handled by teens and others.
-
Minimum wage was instituted to get people into the workforce , gain experience and a track record to advance particularly teens just entering the job market. It was never intended to be a living wage just something businesses could absorb while training neophytes while they gained knowledge and marketable skills.
-
What is the appropriate amount of money to live on and what is the skill set/capability that an employee must exhibit to receive that wage?
Not being flippant, but you have to define that....additionally, you want to see Walmart or McDonald's jobs go away, raise the wage to make it more attractive for those companies to automate. Fast food restaurants no longer (in most but not all) take orders onsite through the drive through....that's actually a call center you are talking to.
I have never been to a place that does this. Where are you talking about? Which chains? Which cities?
-
Minimum wage was instituted to get people into the workforce , gain experience and a track record to advance particularly teens just entering the job market. It was never intended to be a living wage just something businesses could absorb while training neophytes while they gained knowledge and marketable skills.
Correct. But then millions of manufacturing jobs were sent overseas. Suddenly, millions of people who were supporting their families just fine had no other option but to work low paid jobs. And the residual effect was that they no longer had the money to help send their kids through college so they could have better lives.
I lived this 30 years ago. Worked in a factory for a good wage till the jobs left. Luckily, Aspin had pushed through re-education bills for those that lost jobs and I went back to finish my degree. But a good portion of those that lost jobs didn't have the option of going to college and less and less good paying jobs became available for them.
So, many took minimum wage jobs just to survive.
-
Not sure how you can make such a claim when Obamacare is merely a collection of state exchanges or marketplaces with many different tiers of plans by many different providers. Some exchanges have more options than others, and some providers are better than others.
So saying one company's health insurance plan is better than this is basically a nonsensical statement.
this is how i can make my claim, but thanks for asking
http://washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-walmart-health-plan-is-cheaper-offers-more-coverage-than-obamacare/article/2541670
-
this is how i can make my claim, but thanks for asking
http://washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-walmart-health-plan-is-cheaper-offers-more-coverage-than-obamacare/article/2541670
You need to find out how Walmart works.
It's plan is like other company plans in that they pay enough of the premium so an employee pays less than if they bought insurance on their own. So, it is a completely different animal. Again, you need to learn the difference between company supplied insurance and an individual buying insurance.
But the wal-Mart plan is not quite as good as the article makes it out to be.
Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week, according to a copy of the company’s policy obtained by The Huffington Post.
Under the policy, slated to take effect in January, Walmart also reserves the right to eliminate health care coverage for certain workers if their average workweek dips below 30 hours -- something that happens with regularity and at the direction of company managers.
Walmart declined to disclose how many of its roughly 1.4 million U.S. workers are vulnerable to losing medical insurance under its new policy. In an emailed statement, company spokesman David Tovar said Walmart had “made a business decision” not to respond to questions from The Huffington Post and accused the publication of unfair coverage.
Labor and health care experts portrayed Walmart’s decision to exclude workers from its medical plans as an attempt to limit costs while taking advantage of the national health care reform known as Obamacare. Among the key features of Obamacare is an expansion of Medicaid, the taxpayer-financed health insurance program for poor people. Many of the Walmart workers who might be dropped from the company’s health care plans earn so little that they would qualify for the expanded Medicaid program, these experts said.
“Walmart is effectively shifting the costs of paying for its employees onto the federal government with this new plan, which is one of the problems with the way the law is structured,” said Ken Jacobs, chairman of the Labor Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
For Walmart, this latest policy represents a step back in time. Almost seven years ago, as Walmart confronted public criticism that its employees couldn't afford its benefits, the company announced with much fanfare that it would expand health coverage for part-time workers.
-
this is how i can make my claim, but thanks for asking
http://washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-walmart-health-plan-is-cheaper-offers-more-coverage-than-obamacare/article/2541670
Walmart's own website refute's this article. They state that their plan costs $18 a day. That is almost $550 a month.
Also, their individual plan has a deductible of $4400 a year. Given the average Walmart employee makes less than $25000 a year, the average employee qualifies for subsidies.
An equivalent plan with subsidies would be FREE on Obamacare.
Walmart has publicly admitted that their employees are better off with government assistance (aka medical coverage).
-
Interesting article from Nate Silver's website: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-american-middle-class-hasnt-gotten-a-raise-in-15-years/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
I'm probably walking a fine line of getting the ban hammer with some of this.
-
I have never been to a place that does this. Where are you talking about? Which chains? Which cities?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/technology/11fast.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/technology/11fast.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
Old article but only one I could find from a good source in a hurry. I know Wendy's and Panda Express do it as well.
-
We need the working class to keep working.
Or this may happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1BQPV-iCkU
-
I would like to point out that these minimum wage jobs and other entry level positions were NEVER meant to be full-time, life-long jobs that people were supposed to be supporting a family on. When other sources of employment dried up, unskilled workers were forced down into these positions that should be handled by teens and others.
This is completely correct, the issue is not that the low wage jobs aren't paying enough.....it's that there are too many people unqualified to do other jobs and needing these jobs to support themselves. The answer in all of this is the failed education system. We have not prepared the current generation of workers for the new labor market. High school hasn't really changed in 30 years in terms of preparing individuals who will not be going onto a 4 year college degree.
Raising minimum wage doesn't do anything to rectify that issue and merely masks it somewhat temporarily and long term makes it worse by bringing automation into the workforce widening the gap between the low wage worker and the jobs open to them.
-
I was more referring to the idea that raising minimum-wage increases unemployment, which has been disproven over and over again. This is mainly due to the fact that people at the lower end of the economic spectrum put more of the extra money they receive back into the economy - especially locally.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPISmallBusinessMinWage.pdf
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-21/higher-minimum-wage-small-business-doesnt-mind
Actually it hasn't been disproven, let alone over and over and over again. Look at the CBO's latest report for just on such example. Must be like "settled science" ::)
500K job losses estimated by CBO http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/
-
Costs are even higher in Germany and they are doing just fine. Oh, and they have stricter environmental regulations then in the USA.
Their low corporate tax rate sure isn't hurting them....maybe here in the USA we'll get a clue
-
Fast food restaurants no longer (in most but not all) take orders onsite through the drive through....that's actually a call center you are talking to.
McD even experimented with indian call centers at drive throughs.
But now that is giving way to keypads at the drive through and phone apps for your order.
People cost too much and hiking the minimum wage will a create their demise. About 90% of the studies say this, the other 10% get all the attention.
By the way who's most favorite hiking the minimum wage? Labor unions as they have lots of contracts tied to the minimum wage (ie., this job gets 250% the minimum wage). While labor unions push for the minimum wage hike the hardest they actually care the least about people that actually get paid the minimum wage because none of them are union workers. There just fodder to get union workers better pay.
-
By the way who's most favorite hiking the minimum wage? Labor unions as they have lots of contracts tied to the minimum wage (ie., this job gets 250% the minimum wage). While labor unions push for the minimum wage hike the hardest they actually care the least about people that actually get paid the minimum wage because none of them are union workers. There just fodder to get union workers better pay.
But that's what unions are for: to increase the earnings and benefits for their members.
Much like industry groups work: increase the profits and access to resources for their corporate members.
Everyone is in on the pie.
Either the $ is going to a person who's actually going to spend it in your community or it's going to someone who is more likely going to shield it overseas.
-
There is always a breaking point for automation vs human labor.
China still does a lot of road construction by hand, because labor is cheap, and almost unlimited. Heavy equipment is expensive.
You can't afford that in the US, man-power is just too expensive. You're way better off getting heavy equipment that can do the work of 50 men.
What does this mean for the future of labor? I don't really know... but I can tell you this cycle has been going on in the US since the industrial revolution.
I saw this. 10 years ago my former company sent a product to China. The move made no sense financially (ROI never paid-back) other than they wanted to close the facility in the middle of no-where Puerto Rico. The line was fully automated in PR. They had a Technician who basically monitored and took care of 2 or 3 similar running lines simultaneously. The product got sent to the new facility in China where the automation disappeared and was replaced by like 30 assemblers.
They tried to conduct a few Kaizen events and the same thing happened in every event - "the team came up with some fixes that would reduce cost/assembly time, but the plant manager would always reply that they could just hire another 10 people at an even lesser cost to basically do the same thing."
-
Again, the issue is not that these jobs are paid a wage that doesn't support a family, it's that the people seeking these jobs need them for support because they aren't qualified for better jobs to support them.
There is a labor shortage in certain jobs, jobs that are very sustainable from a family standpoint, however the labor force hasn't been positioned to support those jobs. That is ultimately the fault of primary and secondary education and by extension government policies regarding those educational paths.
-
Again, the issue is not that these jobs are paid a wage that doesn't support a family, it's that the people seeking these jobs need them for support because they aren't qualified for better jobs to support them.
There is a labor shortage in certain jobs, jobs that are very sustainable from a family standpoint, however the labor force hasn't been positioned to support those jobs. That is ultimately the fault of primary and secondary education and by extension government policies regarding those educational paths.
I think your right.
But, here's what I don't know:
Are there enough decent jobs for HS graduates right now? It's easy to say they shouldn't be working at Wal-Mart, but are there enough attainable jobs out there that pay a livable wage? I know there are technical jobs (electrician, plumber, HVAC etc.), but those require additional training.
I'm talking about a the day you walk out of HS, are there jobs where you can start at 20K+ and work your way up from there?
In the 1950's, I think were industrial-type jobs way you'd start on the bottom, but there was opportunity for upward movement for those that stuck with it. A guy could carve out a decent living eventually. Right? Or am I dreaming that?
The solution might be more based upon our education and training system. We're training/educating kids like it's 1950. Maybe it's time we train them like it's 2050.
-
But that's what unions are for: to increase the earnings and benefits for their members.
Much like industry groups work: increase the profits and access to resources for their corporate members.
Everyone is in on the pie.
Either the $ is going to a person who's actually going to spend it in your community or it's going to someone who is more likely going to shield it overseas.
Unfortunately, some unions are driving their membership into extinction. I say that as a husband to a wife who is a member of a labor union and their ranks have been decimated over the years as jobs have gone bye bye. She was in the grocer's union. Now, with self checkouts, etc, they simply don't need the workers (she's been a stay at home mom for many years, so doesn't impact us directly anymore....but my point being that labor costs soared, profit margins for grocery business are already miniscule, so they have to adapt to stay in business).
-
I think your right.
But, here's what I don't know:
Are there enough decent jobs for HS graduates right now? It's easy to say they shouldn't be working at Wal-Mart, but are there enough attainable jobs out there that pay a livable wage? I know there are technical jobs (electrician, plumber, HVAC etc.), but those require additional training.
I'm talking about a the day you walk out of HS, are there jobs where you can start at 20K+ and work your way up from there?
In the 1950's, I think were industrial-type jobs way you'd start on the bottom, but there was opportunity for upward movement for those that stuck with it. A guy could carve out a decent living eventually. Right? Or am I dreaming that?
The solution might be more based upon our education and training system. We're training/educating kids like it's 1950. Maybe it's time we train them like it's 2050.
No, you're "F'ed" if you don't get at least a undergraduate degree. If you stop at HS diploma their are limited opportunities that pay lousy. Let me be blunt, unless you get more education that a HS degree, the modern economy really has no use for you.
The exception is a HS degree only works if you can also get drafted by the NBA.
-
No, you're "F'ed" if you don't get at least a undergraduate degree. If you stop at HS diploma their are limited opportunities that pay lousy. Let me be blunt, unless you get more education that a HS degree, the modern economy really has no use for you.
The exception is a HS degree only works if you can also get drafted by the NBA.
I agree that you need more than a HS diploma, I will disagree when you say you need at least an undergraduate degree.
I have friends in the trades, plumbers, electricians, who are making money hand over fist. They only got technical training from a vocational school after high school.
-
But that's what unions are for: to increase the earnings and benefits for their members.
Much like industry groups work: increase the profits and access to resources for their corporate members.
Everyone is in on the pie.
Either the $ is going to a person who's actually going to spend it in your community or it's going to someone who is more likely going to shield it overseas.
And the Unions have done a disastrously bad job at this. Decades of corruption and bad decisions has taken their toll ...
1943, 40% of the Private US workforce was unionized. Today is is 8%.
Today 45% of all union workers are Government employees. In the 1940s it was essentially zero.
Unions really have no place in the private workforce anymore, Those that are left are relics of the past. The reason is they pretty much killed every industry that was unionized.
Now that are killing the public sector but demanding too much and delivering too little.
-
I agree that you need more than a HS diploma, I will disagree when you say you need at least an undergraduate degree.
I have friends in the trades, plumbers, electricians, who are making money hand over fist. They only got technical training from a vocational school after high school.
The construction industry was decimated in 2008. 1/3 to 40% of trade workers lost their job.
Those left are making money making money have to know their are at least two other guys ready to undercut their prices when giving the chance (which is where sites like Angie's list come in). And unless you are an established tradesman, no one needs more plumbers or electricians. HS kids need not apply.
The exception is oil workers in the Bakken field in North Dakota. Starting salaries are $75,000 with no experience, $200,000 within two years. But it very hard work and you have to live in rural North Dakota.
-
And the Unions have done a disastrously bad job at this. Decades of corruption and bad decisions has taken their toll ...
1943, 40% of the Private US workforce was unionized. Today is is 8%.
Today 45% of all union workers are Government employees. In the 1940s it was essentially zero.
Unions really have no place in the private workforce anymore, Those that are left are relics of the past. The reason is they pretty much killed every industry that was unionized.
Now that are killing the public sector but demanding too much and delivering too little.
I won't say unions had NO impact on American de-industrialization, but there were MANY MANY MANY reasons for this. Reasons you are ignoring.
Reasons such as globalization, cheaper workforces in China, India, southeast Asia. Advances in technology such as automation and robotics, increasing numbers of those with college degrees which led to the advent of a service economy, etc.
Blaming unions as the sole reason for a post-industrial American lacks nuance at best, and is dishonest at worst.
-
The construction industry was decimated in 2008. 1/3 to 40% of trade workers lost their job.
Those left are making money making money have to know their are at least two other guys ready to undercut their prices when giving the chance (which is where sites like Angie's list come in). And unless you are an established tradesman, no one needs more plumbers or electricians. HS kids need not apply.
The exception is oil workers in the Bakken field in North Dakota. Starting salaries are $75,000 with no experience, $200,000 within two years. But it very hard work and you have to live in rural North Dakota.
My buddy who is a plumber in NE Wisconsin and 28 years old would completely disagree with your assessment. He owns his own business and is so busy he is currently looking to hire an apprentice who is right out of high school. And pay them well.
-
And the Unions have done a disastrously bad job at this. Decades of corruption and bad decisions has taken their toll ...
1943, 40% of the Private US workforce was unionized. Today is is 8%.
Today 45% of all union workers are Government employees. In the 1940s it was essentially zero.
Unions really have no place in the private workforce anymore, Those that are left are relics of the past. The reason is they pretty much killed every industry that was unionized.
Now that are killing the public sector but demanding too much and delivering too little.
Quite frankly, it should be outlawed. I'm fine with private unions, but public unions are a poison to this country. When you have governors in states negotiating the benefits, wages, etc of state employees while at the same time begging those very state employees to fund your campaign and vote for you, there is a quid pro quo going on. It means the governor is promising benefits, pensions, etc that cannot be paid or afforded and won't manifest themselves until years after he\she is out of office, but the bill still has to be paid.
Its is killing the financial pinnings of this country and if I had to guess, at some point there will be blood in the streets as a result. All those promised benefits, impossible to pay. Financially impossible. A lot of people promised those dollars are going to be very upset....I get it, but the sad thing is they never should have been promised some of these insane perks to begin with. They were, of course, because they got their guy in office who returned the solid to them.
Public unions should not be negotiating with the executive who needs them to get into office in the first place.
-
I won't say unions had NO impact on American de-industrialization, but there were MANY MANY MANY reasons for this. Reasons you are ignoring.
Reasons such as globalization, cheaper workforces in China, India, southeast Asia. Advances in technology such as automation and robotics, increasing numbers of those with college degrees which led to the advent of a service economy, etc.
Blaming unions as the sole reason for a post-industrial American lacks nuance at best, and is dishonest at worst.
Private sector union membership has been declining for 70 years. I picked 1943 as that was it was the all-time high in private sector union membership.
globalization, cheaper workforces in China, India, southeast Asia. Advances in technology such as automation and robotics, increasing numbers of those with college degrees which led to the advent of a service economy
All correct ... and through this unions have shown an absolutely inability to adapt to the changes of the last 70 years which is why they no longer serve any useful role in the private sector.
Union were useful from the 1880s to the 1940s. They stopped by useful once WW2 ended.
-
Quite frankly, it should be outlawed. I'm fine with private unions, but public unions are a poison to this country. When you have governors in states negotiating the benefits, wages, etc of state employees while at the same time begging those very state employees to fund your campaign and vote for you, there is a quid pro quo going on. It means the governor is promising benefits, pensions, etc that cannot be paid or afforded and won't manifest themselves until years after he\she is out of office, but the bill still has to be paid.
Its is killing the financial pinnings of this country and if I had to guess, at some point there will be blood in the streets as a result. All those promised benefits, impossible to pay. Financially impossible. A lot of people promised those dollars are going to be very upset....I get it, but the sad thing is they never should have been promised some of these insane perks to begin with. They were, of course, because they got their guy in office who returned the solid to them.
Public unions should not be negotiating with the executive who needs them to get into office in the first place.
I agree with you, but unions aren't the only ones doing the "quid pro quo" you speak of.
Major corporations donate millions so they can get lots of goodies from Congress. It happens everywhere.
I am uncomfortable allowing executives to continue doing this while outlawing working and middle class workers from doing the same.
-
Private sector union membership has been declining for 70 years. I picked 1943 as that was it was the all-time high in private sector union membership.
globalization, cheaper workforces in China, India, southeast Asia. Advances in technology such as automation and robotics, increasing numbers of those with college degrees which led to the advent of a service economy
All correct ... and through this unions have shown an absolutely inability to adapt to the changes of the last 70 years which is why they no longer serve any useful role in the private sector.
Union were useful from the 1880s to the 1940s. They stopped by useful once WW2 ended.
I'd point you to Germany, where there is a massive industrial and manufacturing economy, with a strong union presence (called works councils there). It can be done, and done well so it benefits works and companies together.
-
I'm saying maybe Walmart shouldn't be allowed to pay their employees an amount so little that they cannot actually live on it. We are subsidizing their profits in essence.
Also, yes if every retail employee in the country stopped working, that would ground the country to a halt. Same with most large labor groups/industries.
I find it curious that so few people understand the simple concept of supply and demand. If Walmart is such a travesty to society (which apparently it isn't because those jobs are critical to society despite the fact that they're detrimental to society), the answer is simple --- don't shop there. Nobody is being forced to spend their money there just like nobody is forcing people to work there.
If you're so upset that Walmart's employees earn so little money, then start your own business and poach their employees so you can pay them "living wage" jobs.
-
My buddy who is a plumber in NE Wisconsin and 28 years old would completely disagree with your assessment. He owns his own business and is so busy he is currently looking to hire an apprentice who is right out of high school. And pay them well.
I'm happy you know a plumber in Green bay that is doing well. Fact is the construction trades have been a killing field in terms of employment. No one was harder hit that this sector during the financial crisis.
In the 1970 housing starts neared 3 million a year. This year they it is less than a million, same as 1925!! That lots of plumbers, electricians and bricklayers now on welfare.
http://sbronars.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/2-8-million-construction-jobs-are-missing/
-
Quite frankly, it should be outlawed. I'm fine with private unions, but public unions are a poison to this country. When you have governors in states negotiating the benefits, wages, etc of state employees while at the same time begging those very state employees to fund your campaign and vote for you, there is a quid pro quo going on. It means the governor is promising benefits, pensions, etc that cannot be paid or afforded and won't manifest themselves until years after he\she is out of office, but the bill still has to be paid.
Its is killing the financial pinnings of this country and if I had to guess, at some point there will be blood in the streets as a result. All those promised benefits, impossible to pay. Financially impossible. A lot of people promised those dollars are going to be very upset....I get it, but the sad thing is they never should have been promised some of these insane perks to begin with. They were, of course, because they got their guy in office who returned the solid to them.
Public unions should not be negotiating with the executive who needs them to get into office in the first place.
Detroit anyone?
-
Laborers 140 and Operators 139 are both very concerned about the lack of skilled workers under the age of 45, as am I.
Either position can offer you a position of working April-November and taking home $80,000.
-
I find it curious that so few people understand the simple concept of supply and demand. If Walmart is such a travesty to society (which apparently it isn't because those jobs are critical to society despite the fact that they're detrimental to society), the answer is simple --- don't shop there. Nobody is being forced to spend their money there just like nobody is forcing people to work there.
If you're so upset that Walmart's employees earn so little money, then start your own business and poach their employees so you can pay them "living wage" jobs.
You miss the point. The fact that they pay their employees so little that YOU have to subsidize their healthcare and provide them with food stamps while their employers make BILLION$$ is the point.
You really want to shop somewhere where you are also paying the employees with your tax dollars? Go ahead.
-
Laborers 140 and Operators 139 are both very concerned about the lack of skilled workers under the age of 45, as am I.
Either position can offer you a position of working April-November and taking home $80,000.
Note what 2008 financial crisis did to this industry and how it is not recovering. Given this why would someone under 45 want to enter this industry?
(http://sbronars.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/construction2.jpg)
-
I'm happy you know a plumber in Green bay that is doing well. Fact is the construction trades have been a killing field in terms of employment. No one was harder hit that this sector during the financial crisis.
In the 1970 housing starts neared 3 million a year. This year they it is less than a million, same as 1925!! That lots of plumbers, electricians and bricklayers now on welfare.
http://sbronars.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/2-8-million-construction-jobs-are-missing/
Disagree, housing starts aren't the only metric. Aging infrastructure and existing building remodeling account for far more employment opportunity than housing starts
-
Note what 2008 financial crisis did to this industry and how it is not recovering. Given this why would someone under 45 want to enter this industry?
(http://sbronars.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/construction2.jpg)
Hey good news, I can play with statistics too to make pictures look horrendous.
The graph is of % of construction jobs, how do they define those jobs, what happened to the total employment market, are there jobs going unfilled in construction....etc.
The economy has changed significantly over the last 15 years and the educational system has changed to match.....that is the gap, not the jobs that are actually available.
-
You miss the point. The fact that they pay their employees so little that YOU have to subsidize their healthcare and provide them with food stamps while their employers make BILLION$$ is the point.
You really want to shop somewhere where you are also paying the employees with your tax dollars? Go ahead.
Got it... stop the subsidies to the employees, employers become poor, and life is good for the rest of us.
-
Note what 2008 financial crisis did to this industry and how it is not recovering. Given this why would someone under 45 want to enter this industry?
(http://sbronars.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/construction2.jpg)
Also note the high water marks coincide with the housing bubbles that later busted historically....not sure you want to beg your barometer to those points in history. According to your graph construction % is closer to the mean than 2007 was.
-
If you are a carpenter who swings a hammer on a new house.....you got killed in the recession. If you are a plumber or electrician who works on existing homes, you have more work than you know what to do with.
-
Note what 2008 financial crisis did to this industry and how it is not recovering. Given this why would someone under 45 want to enter this industry?
Availability of work and more than decent wage with zero education required both with an excellence shot at advancement with time due to the age gap.
-
Actually it hasn't been disproven, let alone over and over and over again. Look at the CBO's latest report for just on such example. Must be like "settled science" ::)
500K job losses estimated by CBO http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/
Hmmm. Estimated, eh? Funny how this is always refuted by looking at what actually happens when it is raised
I know you like it, cause it fits your purist logic...but try using actual history.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w4509.pdf?new_window=1
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/washington-shows-highest-minimum-wage-state-beats-u-s-with-jobs.html
-
I'm happy you know a plumber in Green bay that is doing well. Fact is the construction trades have been a killing field in terms of employment. No one was harder hit that this sector during the financial crisis.
In the 1970 housing starts neared 3 million a year. This year they it is less than a million, same as 1925!! That lots of plumbers, electricians and bricklayers now on welfare.
http://sbronars.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/2-8-million-construction-jobs-are-missing/
Housing starts are maybe 5% of his business.
Most of it is simple repairs and maybe some remodeling.
Construction and plumbing are not analogous. Same goes with electricians. I never was talking about construction. I said "the trades."
Tradesmen working on existing homes are making a killing. For the same reason car mechanics make a killing when people don't buy new cars.
-
If you are a carpenter who swings a hammer on a new house.....you got killed in the recession. If you are a plumber or electrician who works on existing homes, you have more work than you know what to do with.
+1
-
I find it curious that so few people understand the simple concept of supply and demand. If Walmart is such a travesty to society (which apparently it isn't because those jobs are critical to society despite the fact that they're detrimental to society), the answer is simple --- don't shop there. Nobody is being forced to spend their money there just like nobody is forcing people to work there.
If you're so upset that Walmart's employees earn so little money, then start your own business and poach their employees so you can pay them "living wage" jobs.
You act as if this is occurring in a true free market, where Wal-Mart does not benefit from government subsidies.
-
Quite frankly, it should be outlawed. I'm fine with private unions, but public unions are a poison to this country. When you have governors in states negotiating the benefits, wages, etc of state employees while at the same time begging those very state employees to fund your campaign and vote for you, there is a quid pro quo going on. It means the governor is promising benefits, pensions, etc that cannot be paid or afforded and won't manifest themselves until years after he\she is out of office, but the bill still has to be paid.
Its is killing the financial pinnings of this country and if I had to guess, at some point there will be blood in the streets as a result. All those promised benefits, impossible to pay. Financially impossible. A lot of people promised those dollars are going to be very upset....I get it, but the sad thing is they never should have been promised some of these insane perks to begin with. They were, of course, because they got their guy in office who returned the solid to them.
So much drama.
Suggesting that the average public union worker receives "insane" perks is, um, insane.
There are absolutely instances in which benefits promised are a travesty, but this usually involves only the people at the very top of the food chain (i.e. school superintendents, judges, former directors), and is in no way reflective of the average worker.
Here in Illinois, the median teacher pension is $55k a year.
Remember, these are people with no Social Security and no access to an employer backed 401k. This is all they get. Are you really suggesting that a person living on $55,000 a year in 2014 is somehow funding a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime? That that's an "insane" perk?
And it's not as if this is free money. They're contributing a solid chunk of their annual incomes toward these benefits (here in Illinois it's 9 percent a year).
The problem in most states - Illinois being the shining example - isn't that the benefits promised were excessive or unaffordable in most instances. They're not.
The problem is that for decades, while public workers have been making their required contributions to the system, the politicians haven't. They've consistently diverted funding earmarked for the pension system to pay for other pet projects, creating the massive funding shortfalls we have today. The problem is less about too much going out as it is too little going in.
And then they get yahoos on the Internet shouting about how it's all the teachers' and unions' fault. Those greedy SOBs should spend retirement dining on cat food and be happy about it.
I'm curious, why are you upset that public school teachers have the right to support a political candidates who they believe will act in their interests (aka taking part in the political system - gasp!), and yet I've yet to see you rage about entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual corporations spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars every two years supporting candidates who will make decisions on their interests, many of which involve how our tax dollars are spent, collected and allocated.
It's OK for management to take part in the system, but labor better stay out?
Public unions should not be negotiating with the executive who needs them to get into office in the first place.
And, by and large, they don't. Do you think Jerry Brown negotiates the teacher contracts in your suburban school district or something?
The reality is, those contracts are negotiated by locally elected school boards, members of which very rarely spend a lot of money running for office and even less rarely get financial support from the teacher unions with which they negotiate. And if people in those school districts believe their elected representatives are paying teachers too much or entitling them to insane benefits, they're free to vote them out of office. It's not hard to bump out an incumbent on the local level.
-
You act as if this is occurring in a true free market, where Wal-Mart does not benefit from government subsidies.
Yep.
I'm fine with Walmart paying its employees whatever they want.
I'm not fine with Walmart and its executives benefiting through tax breaks and subsidies to the tune of literally billions of dollars a year.
-
Golden parachutes for incompetent CEO's is a much bigger travesty than pensions for the average worker.
-
nm
-
Chico's, I repeat my challenge to you from a few years ago. Forsake your 1%'er job. Become a public school teacher in an inner city, walk a beat, drag a hose down a smoky hallway, become a civil engineer. Live on that salary. And then live on that pension in 20 years. Pretty simple.
-
wtf is a pension and how can I get one?! I'm not that sure my 401K, which is almost exclusively my $ contributions (teachers, see Roth IRA), will not provide $55K/year
Then you're doing something wrong.
-
So much drama.
Suggesting that the average public union worker receives "insane" perks is, um, insane.
There are absolutely instances in which benefits promised are a travesty, but this usually involves only the people at the very top of the food chain (i.e. school superintendents, judges, former directors), and is in no way reflective of the average worker.
Here in Illinois, the median teacher pension is $55k a year.
Remember, these are people with no Social Security and no access to an employer backed 401k. This is all they get. Are you really suggesting that a person living on $55,000 a year in 2014 is somehow funding a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime? That that's an "insane" perk?
And it's not as if this is free money. They're contributing a solid chunk of their annual incomes toward these benefits (here in Illinois it's 9 percent a year).
The problem in most states - Illinois being the shining example - isn't that the benefits promised were excessive or unaffordable in most instances. They're not.
The problem is that for decades, while public workers have been making their required contributions to the system, the politicians haven't. They've consistently diverted funding earmarked for the pension system to pay for other pet projects, creating the massive funding shortfalls we have today. The problem is less about too much going out as it is too little going in.
And then they get yahoos on the Internet shouting about how it's all the teachers' and unions' fault. Those greedy SOBs should spend retirement dining on cat food and be happy about it.
I'm curious, why are you upset that public school teachers have the right to support a political candidates who they believe will act in their interests (aka taking part in the political system - gasp!), and yet I've yet to see you rage about entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual corporations spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars every two years supporting candidates who will make decisions on their interests, many of which involve how our tax dollars are spent, collected and allocated.
It's OK for management to take part in the system, but labor better stay out?
And, by and large, they don't. Do you think Jerry Brown negotiates the teacher contracts in your suburban school district or something?
The reality is, those contracts are negotiated by locally elected school boards, members of which very rarely spend a lot of money running for office and even less rarely get financial support from the teacher unions with which they negotiate. And if people in those school districts believe their elected representatives are paying teachers too much or entitling them to insane benefits, they're free to vote them out of office. It's not hard to bump out an incumbent on the local level.
Pakuni,
In Connecticut in addition to the state administered teacher's pension, most school districts also offer a 403b plan, the 401k of the public sector world.
-
I find it curious that so few people understand the simple concept of supply and demand. If Walmart/Target is such a travesty to society (which apparently it isn't because those jobs are critical to society despite the fact that they're detrimental to society), the answer is simple --- don't shop there. Nobody is being forced to spend their money there just like nobody is forcing people to work there.
If you're so upset that Walmart's/Target's employees earn so little money, then start your own business and poach their employees so you can pay them "living wage" jobs.
Fixed.
-
Pakuni,
In Connecticut in addition to the state administered teacher's pension, most school districts also offer a 403b plan, the 401k of the public sector world.
But to my understanding, the employers make no distribution to the plan and administrative fees are taken out of the employees' accounts, not subsidized my the state.
-
But to my understanding, the employers make no distribution to the plan and administrative fees are taken out of the employees' accounts, not subsidized my the state.
Correct!
-
Detroit anyone?
California poster child
-
I find it curious that so few people understand the simple concept of supply and demand. If Walmart is such a travesty to society (which apparently it isn't because those jobs are critical to society despite the fact that they're detrimental to society), the answer is simple --- don't shop there. Nobody is being forced to spend their money there just like nobody is forcing people to work there.
If you're so upset that Walmart's employees earn so little money, then start your own business and poach their employees so you can pay them "living wage" jobs.
I find it utterly despicable that you think paying people a livable wage is some sort egregious overreach. It's sick you think there are full-time workers and their families out there who deserve to live on less than $18 a year. They literally lean on US the taxpayers to supplement their employees but you just keep on making excuses for them. But yes, keep blaming the poor people and not those who take advantage of their market powers and political influences to line their pockets. The lack of empathy you espouse is sad.
-
But to my understanding, the employers make no distribution to the plan and administrative fees are taken out of the employees' accounts, not subsidized my the state.
so just like many a 401K, sure some employers might dollar match a small % but I haven't seen any that pay the admin fees for the employee
-
So much drama.
Suggesting that the average public union worker receives "insane" perks is, um, insane.
There are absolutely instances in which benefits promised are a travesty, but this usually involves only the people at the very top of the food chain (i.e. school superintendents, judges, former directors), and is in no way reflective of the average worker.
Here in Illinois, the median teacher pension is $55k a year.
Remember, these are people with no Social Security and no access to an employer backed 401k. This is all they get. Are you really suggesting that a person living on $55,000 a year in 2014 is somehow funding a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime? That that's an "insane" perk?
And it's not as if this is free money. They're contributing a solid chunk of their annual incomes toward these benefits (here in Illinois it's 9 percent a year).
The problem in most states - Illinois being the shining example - isn't that the benefits promised were excessive or unaffordable in most instances. They're not.
The problem is that for decades, while public workers have been making their required contributions to the system, the politicians haven't. They've consistently diverted funding earmarked for the pension system to pay for other pet projects, creating the massive funding shortfalls we have today. The problem is less about too much going out as it is too little going in.
And then they get yahoos on the Internet shouting about how it's all the teachers' and unions' fault. Those greedy SOBs should spend retirement dining on cat food and be happy about it.
I'm curious, why are you upset that public school teachers have the right to support a political candidates who they believe will act in their interests (aka taking part in the political system - gasp!), and yet I've yet to see you rage about entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual corporations spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars every two years supporting candidates who will make decisions on their interests, many of which involve how our tax dollars are spent, collected and allocated.
It's OK for management to take part in the system, but labor better stay out?
And, by and large, they don't. Do you think Jerry Brown negotiates the teacher contracts in your suburban school district or something?
The reality is, those contracts are negotiated by locally elected school boards, members of which very rarely spend a lot of money running for office and even less rarely get financial support from the teacher unions with which they negotiate. And if people in those school districts believe their elected representatives are paying teachers too much or entitling them to insane benefits, they're free to vote them out of office. It's not hard to bump out an incumbent on the local level.
Nope. No one wants to talk about the role executive and management levels play in this. Blaming poor and middle class people is just so much easier.
-
Golden parachutes for incompetent CEO's is a much bigger travesty than pensions for the average worker.
They shouldn't even be mentioned in the same paragraph.
-
I agree with you, but unions aren't the only ones doing the "quid pro quo" you speak of.
Major corporations donate millions so they can get lots of goodies from Congress. It happens everywhere.
I am uncomfortable allowing executives to continue doing this while outlawing working and middle class workers from doing the same.
Probably because corporations employee many people, provide many goods and services which pay taxes to those communities, state, etc....I don't disagree with your general premise, but the difference is vast in my opinion. My corporation doesn't tell me how to vote, doesn't have rallies on how to vote, doesn't take dues from me to get candidates elected, and most importantly doesn't put me as a taxpayer on the hook to pay off pensions for other employees so they can retire at age 50 and earn $100K a year the next 35 years. I don't disagree with you that people as individuals should have more power to connect, the reality is they never will.
Sure, corporations can get sweetheart deals to remain in a location, or expand their business to hire more employees, or what have you....usually to benefit not only those corporations, but also those municipalities, states, etc. I fail to see the same equivalency. A state or city needs workers one way or another, the state or city isn't relocating to another state. The perks promised lead to votes, which in turn leads to more promises and more of a quid pro quo. I need help on how the two compare in terms of leading to votes and empowerment which ultimately leads to financial liabilities that are burying everyone.
-
Hmmm. Estimated, eh? Funny how this is always refuted by looking at what actually happens when it is raised
I know you like it, cause it fits your purist logic...but try using actual history.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w4509.pdf?new_window=1
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/washington-shows-highest-minimum-wage-state-beats-u-s-with-jobs.html
I know it's crazy, but there are studies that show the opposite. Maybe we should just accept that fact that you will find studies that support your position and I'll find those that support mine. I included the CBO because they are supposed to be non-partisan.
In the meantime, if studies show no impact to jobs when they are raised, why not take the minimum wage up to $50 an hour...how about $300 an hour...since there is not impact. :D
-
Probably because corporations employee many people, provide many goods and services which pay taxes to those communities, state, etc....I don't disagree with your general premise, but the difference is vast in my opinion. My corporation doesn't tell me how to vote, doesn't have rallies on how to vote, doesn't take dues from me to get candidates elected, and most importantly doesn't put me as a taxpayer on the hook to pay off pensions for other employees so they can retire at age 50 and earn $100K a year the next 35 years. I don't disagree with you that people as individuals should have more power to connect, the reality is they never will.
Sure, corporations can get sweetheart deals to remain in a location, or expand their business to hire more employees, or what have you....usually to benefit not only those corporations, but also those municipalities, states, etc. I fail to see the same equivalency. A state or city needs workers one way or another, the state or city isn't relocating to another state. The perks promised lead to votes, which in turn leads to more promises and more of a quid pro quo. I need help on how the two compare in terms of leading to votes and empowerment which ultimately leads to financial liabilities that are burying everyone.
I'll be more specific.
The Koch brothers have the money and power to literally buy members of Congress for things that directly benefit them.
But workers should not be able to organize to collectively match their power?
Again, neither is ideal in a perfect democracy. But if you outlaw unions, without addressing the other side, you are left with an oligarchy.
-
Housing starts are maybe 5% of his business.
Most of it is simple repairs and maybe some remodeling.
Construction and plumbing are not analogous. Same goes with electricians. I never was talking about construction. I said "the trades."
Tradesmen working on existing homes are making a killing. For the same reason car mechanics make a killing when people don't buy new cars.
Precisely, who else is going to fix stuff for people with liberal arts degrees? (NOTE: Has an MU liberal arts degree, but worked the trades before doing so).
-
I find it utterly despicable that you think paying people a livable wage is some sort egregious overreach. It's sick you think there are full-time workers and their families out there who deserve to live on less than $18 a year. They literally lean on US the taxpayers to supplement their employees but you just keep on making excuses for them. But yes, keep blaming the poor people and not those who take advantage of their market powers and political influences to line their pockets. The lack of empathy you espouse is sad.
Care at all to address the following: Are those jobs the only ones those employees can work, if so why are those the only jobs they can get?
-
So much drama.
Suggesting that the average public union worker receives "insane" perks is, um, insane.
There are absolutely instances in which benefits promised are a travesty, but this usually involves only the people at the very top of the food chain (i.e. school superintendents, judges, former directors), and is in no way reflective of the average worker.
Here in Illinois, the median teacher pension is $55k a year.
Remember, these are people with no Social Security and no access to an employer backed 401k. This is all they get. Are you really suggesting that a person living on $55,000 a year in 2014 is somehow funding a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime? That that's an "insane" perk?
And it's not as if this is free money. They're contributing a solid chunk of their annual incomes toward these benefits (here in Illinois it's 9 percent a year).
The problem in most states - Illinois being the shining example - isn't that the benefits promised were excessive or unaffordable in most instances. They're not.
The problem is that for decades, while public workers have been making their required contributions to the system, the politicians haven't. They've consistently diverted funding earmarked for the pension system to pay for other pet projects, creating the massive funding shortfalls we have today. The problem is less about too much going out as it is too little going in.
And then they get yahoos on the Internet shouting about how it's all the teachers' and unions' fault. Those greedy SOBs should spend retirement dining on cat food and be happy about it.
I'm curious, why are you upset that public school teachers have the right to support a political candidates who they believe will act in their interests (aka taking part in the political system - gasp!), and yet I've yet to see you rage about entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual corporations spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars every two years supporting candidates who will make decisions on their interests, many of which involve how our tax dollars are spent, collected and allocated.
It's OK for management to take part in the system, but labor better stay out?
And, by and large, they don't. Do you think Jerry Brown negotiates the teacher contracts in your suburban school district or something?
The reality is, those contracts are negotiated by locally elected school boards, members of which very rarely spend a lot of money running for office and even less rarely get financial support from the teacher unions with which they negotiate. And if people in those school districts believe their elected representatives are paying teachers too much or entitling them to insane benefits, they're free to vote them out of office. It's not hard to bump out an incumbent on the local level.
I figured this would get you out of your cave...good to see you again.
I'm happy to substitute out Jerry Brown with local school board, city counsel, etc...it's the same principle. It shouldn't be happening, at the gov't level of any kind....liabilities are staggering...into the multiple trillions.
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."
"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations,"
"The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
-FDR
-
I find it utterly despicable that you think paying people a livable wage is some sort egregious overreach. It's sick you think there are full-time workers and their families out there who deserve to live on less than $18 a year. They literally lean on US the taxpayers to supplement their employees but you just keep on making excuses for them. But yes, keep blaming the poor people and not those who take advantage of their market powers and political influences to line their pockets. The lack of empathy you espouse is sad.
Your ideologically-charged rantings are just as ludicrous as what you think I'm espousing. I'm simply demonstrating the lunacy of your argument where in one breath you imply Walmart is critical to society and in the next you lambast their business model. If you want to tell someone how to run their business, buy a majority stake in the company. If you don't agree with the model or their policies, fine - that's your right. Truth be told, neither do I (nor do I shop there). But people have been moving to this country for centuries so they didn't have to be told what to do on the whims of a nutjob (or nutjobs). All I'm saying is don't be a nutjob.
You need to realize that your gripe isn't with capitalism, or Walmart, or subsidies, or republicans... your gripe is with human nature and consumer behavior. If that's what you want to change, start at the bottom, not the top. You can't melt an iceberg by throwing salt on the surface.
-
I believe in capitalism, however sometimes I do have to wonder how much is enough?
You have some people who are trying HARD, and can barely eat/survive. You have some other people mere miles or maybe even blocks away who have so much money they couldn't spend it all in 10 lifetimes.
I know it's not the first time in history it's happened, but it's just weird if you strip away all of our notions and look at the actual results of how we live.
If aliens came, how would we explain it? Would they "get it"?
-
I know it's crazy, but there are studies that show the opposite. Maybe we should just accept that fact that you will find studies that support your position and I'll find those that support mine. I included the CBO because they are supposed to be non-partisan.
In the meantime, if studies show no impact to jobs when they are raised, why not take the minimum wage up to $50 an hour...how about $300 an hour...since there is not impact. :D
No, I won't. Because history proves otherwise. And stop with the strawman argument, of course bumping it up over 500% would have consequences.
-
No, I won't. Because history proves otherwise. And stop with the strawman argument, of course bumping it up over 500% would have consequences.
History doesn't prove otherwise any more than other studies show opposite results. Is your "history" accounting for all inputs correctly? The right industries studied? Were hours cut, but not jobs, thus reducing overall pay, etc, etc.
So what's the right number? Taking it up 70% ok? 110% ok, 114% catastrophic?
Why are you ignoring the CBO's report....you guys loved their report when they were talking about Obamacare...snicker snicker.
-
I believe in capitalism, however sometimes I do have to wonder how much is enough?
You have some people who are trying HARD, and can barely eat/survive. You have some other people mere miles or maybe even blocks away who have so much money they couldn't spend it all in 10 lifetimes.
I know it's not the first time in history it's happened, but it's just weird if you strip away all of our notions and look at the actual results of how we live.
If aliens came, how would we explain it? Would they "get it"?
It's not perfect, but there isn't a better system ever invented in human history.
I get more concerned with the lack of basic economic understanding in this country. When people are bellyaching about revenues earned, I just shake my head, but you see it every day. Revenues are not profits, but I'll be damned if it doesn't seem like the majority of low information voters have a clue on the difference. Secondly, even when profits are high in absolute dollars, that doesn't mean on a percentage basis they aren't around 10%. It's always amazing to me to watch some people get honked off because some giant corporation made billions in profits in a given year, but with a profit margin around 10%, while some mid sized lefty friendly company merely made $750M but had profit margins of 70%...that's ok. The double standards are pretty funny to watch, except that these people are typically so clueless that they don't even understand profit margins or absolute dollars anyway....so it becomes a witnessing of pure ignorance instead....which is also fun.
-
If aliens came, how would we explain it? Would they "get it"?
"Aliens"....are you talking about all the illegals entering our country right now or extraterrestrials?
-
Your ideologically-charged rantings are just as ludicrous as what you think I'm espousing. I'm simply demonstrating the lunacy of your argument where in one breath you imply Walmart is critical to society and in the next you lambast their business model. If you want to tell someone how to run their business, buy a majority stake in the company. If you don't agree with the model or their policies, fine - that's your right. Truth be told, neither do I (nor do I shop there). But people have been moving to this country for centuries so they didn't have to be told what to do on the whims of a nutjob (or nutjobs). All I'm saying is don't be a nutjob.
You need to realize that your gripe isn't with capitalism, or Walmart, or subsidies, or republicans... your gripe is with human nature and consumer behavior. If that's what you want to change, start at the bottom, not the top. You can't melt an iceberg by throwing salt on the surface.
See this is where reading is fundamental. I always aid the workers were fundamental, not the specific company they worked for.
And yes, capitalism is part of problem. We do not live on islands where our actions do not affect others. It's nice to think we are kings of our domain, but it is a delusion. Stop putting your head in the sand that Walmart's (and generally big box retailers) model is nothing less than the abuse of people and their families.
-
So much drama.
Suggesting that the average public union worker receives "insane" perks is, um, insane.
There are absolutely instances in which benefits promised are a travesty, but this usually involves only the people at the very top of the food chain (i.e. school superintendents, judges, former directors), and is in no way reflective of the average worker.
Here in Illinois, the median teacher pension is $55k a year.
Remember, these are people with no Social Security and no access to an employer backed 401k. This is all they get. Are you really suggesting that a person living on $55,000 a year in 2014 is somehow funding a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime? That that's an "insane" perk?
And it's not as if this is free money. They're contributing a solid chunk of their annual incomes toward these benefits (here in Illinois it's 9 percent a year).
The problem in most states - Illinois being the shining example - isn't that the benefits promised were excessive or unaffordable in most instances. They're not.
The problem is that for decades, while public workers have been making their required contributions to the system, the politicians haven't. They've consistently diverted funding earmarked for the pension system to pay for other pet projects, creating the massive funding shortfalls we have today. The problem is less about too much going out as it is too little going in.
And then they get yahoos on the Internet shouting about how it's all the teachers' and unions' fault. Those greedy SOBs should spend retirement dining on cat food and be happy about it.
It's a little bit of both. Politicians/government officials taking from the pension coffers for other things without replacing them. As well, you had teachers who only put in say 5 years worth, then taking 15-20 years of a pension - clearly taking more than they put in, putting the entire pension account behind the 8-ball from the beginning. And that can be my segue into why it's bullcrap that I won't get social security when I retire, because others didn't have to put as much in as I do, but they sure don't mind taking out all that they are "owed".
-
See this is where reading is fundamental. I always said the workers were fundamental, not the specific company they worked for.
And yes, capitalism is part of problem. We do not live on islands where our actions do not affect others. It's nice to think we are kings of our domain, but it is a delusion. Stop putting your head in the sand that Walmart's (and generally big box retailers) model is nothing less than the abuse of people and their families.
FIFY. Or maybe I screwed it up. I didn't take Reading Fundamentals 101 in college. I concentrated on courses like economics, organizational behavior, marketing, finance, statistics... you know, the stuff that actually allows you to see the flaws of ideology through a window pane of reality.
If you genuinely want to stop the abuse of people and their families, let me ask you a serious question: Have you watched any NFL games over the past two weeks? If so, then stop whining like a Calipari or Ryan - henceforward referred to as "Johnboing" (pronounced JOHN-bo-ing) - about big box retailers and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT*.
*Johnboing on an internet message board does not qualify as "doing something about it."
-
Are you really suggesting that a person living on $55,000 a year in 2014 is somehow funding a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime?
If they're shopping at Walmart (or any big box retailer), evidently they are.
-
It's not perfect, but there isn't a better system ever invented in human history.
I'd disagree. Pure capitalism is better than pure socialism, but a mix of the two usually works out the best.
Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway
-
It's not perfect, but there isn't a better system ever invented in human history.
I get more concerned with the lack of basic economic understanding in this country. When people are bellyaching about revenues earned, I just shake my head, but you see it every day. Revenues are not profits, but I'll be damned if it doesn't seem like the majority of low information voters have a clue on the difference. Secondly, even when profits are high in absolute dollars, that doesn't mean on a percentage basis they aren't around 10%. It's always amazing to me to watch some people get honked off because some giant corporation made billions in profits in a given year, but with a profit margin around 10%, while some mid sized lefty friendly company merely made $750M but had profit margins of 70%...that's ok. The double standards are pretty funny to watch, except that these people are typically so clueless that they don't even understand profit margins or absolute dollars anyway....so it becomes a witnessing of pure ignorance instead....which is also fun.
Right, but this is exactly my point.
Step outside of the ideologies for a minute.
We have people struggling to survive and feed themselves, and we have others who literally have more than they know what to do with. These people live only blocks apart.
Again, I'm not some sort of commy, but if we step outside of ourselves for a minute, its an interesting examination of where we are at on planet earth.
I would have a hard time explaining it to a Martian, or to Jesus quite frankly (BTW, Jesus might be a Martian, think about that for a minute).
-
If they're shopping at Walmart (or any big box retailer), evidently they are.
When I think of Walmart products, the first word that comes to mind is "lavish."
-
Right, but this is exactly my point.
Step outside of the ideologies for a minute.
We have people struggling to survive and feed themselves, and we have others who literally have more than they know what to do with. These people live only blocks apart.
Again, I'm not some sort of commy, but if we step outside of ourselves for a minute, its an interesting examination of where we are at on planet earth.
I would have a hard time explaining it to a Martian, or to Jesus quite frankly (BTW, Jesus might be a Martian, think about that for a minute).
This makes me sad.
-
An interesting topic, and generally civil discourse, but you know thedrill