rehmwa 2 #126 July 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteProductivity results in better pay for the individual. The converse of that is demonstrably false (more pay does NOT guarantee better performance). it worked for ford though... absolutely, because of competition in an interference free market and in a society based on present labor. If the higher pay is legislated - then there is no pool of people competing for it, they don't have to compete, thus they don't have to be more productive at all - you're just giving them more with no incentive to return the favor. Further, their loyalties from the increased pay don't accrue to the employer, they accrue to the government DESPITE the employer - likely productivity goes down And we can get most of our labor from remote sources, then the competition goes to the lowest bidder and the companies still get increased productivity. you basic theory is absolutely false based on the first item, but, if we even assumed wrongly that it was correct, you still lose because you can't even establish competition for higher paying jobs in today's employee market you're example ONLY applies to a micro situation based on a factory assumption where the rest of the market remains static. It's not macro applicable, nor professional at all - it's really idiotic so here's how you make it work - start your own biz, make it present labor intensive, and pay better than the competitors - that works - but only for you, at the expense of the other guys who are forced to try to keep up. legislation cannot make it work - but examples by successful and freely operating companies can..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #127 July 26, 2011 and you're out of your depth - swim to shore stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #128 July 26, 2011 Quote and you're out of your depth - swim to shore Really? I think the collective group on both sides of the belief spectrum here would agree that you are making flawed arguments and that a majority of what you have said in this thread has been hogwash."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #129 July 26, 2011 QuoteIf the higher pay is legislated - then there is no pool of people competing for it, they don't have to compete, there's a pool of unemployed competing for it...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #130 July 26, 2011 Quote Quote and you're out of your depth - swim to shore Really? I think. or possibly not stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #131 July 26, 2011 Quotemajority of what you have said in this thread has been hogwash. not even hogwash - the Ford example is a testimony to free trade with minimal government. to try to use it for the reverse argument is really stupid and misses on basic economics and business ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #132 July 26, 2011 >contrary to your model - at the moment productivity goes up and the workers don't benefit. Sorry, I can't keep up with your flipflops. You just change positions too fast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #133 July 26, 2011 Quote>contrary to your model - at the moment productivity goes up and the workers don't benefit. Sorry, I can't keep up with your flipflops. You just change positions too fast. and you don't seem able to follow the facts...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #134 July 26, 2011 QuoteQuotemajority of what you have said in this thread has been hogwash. not even hogwash - the Ford example is a testimony to free trade with minimal government. and also an example of how increasing the basic wage can increase productivity...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #135 July 26, 2011 as for continually cutting wages... Quotethe type of productivity gains that companies have emphasizing lately have more to do with trying to save money — reducing their dependency on workers — than on making higher quality and more advanced products that improve people’s lives. That drive for efficiency can boost productivity over the short run, “but it’s not a sustainable way to drive productivity,” said Mr. Manyika. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/02/16/slowing-labor-force-growth-means-us-needs-big-productivity-gains/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #136 July 26, 2011 try and understand this... QuoteIn 2009, stock owners, bankers, brokers, hedge-fund wizards, highly paid corporate executives, corporations, and mid-ranking managers pocketed—as either income, benefits, or perks such as corporate jets—an estimated $1.91 trillion that 40 years ago would have collectively gone to non-supervisory and production workers in the form of higher wages and benefits. These are the 88 million workers in the private sector who are closely tied to production processes and/or are not responsible for the supervision, planning, or direction of other workers. From the end of World War II until the early 1970s, the benefits of economic growth were broadly shared by those in all income categories: workers received increases in compensation (wages plus benefits) that essentially matched the rise in their productivity. Neoclassical economist John Bates Clark (1847-1938) first formulated what he termed the “natural law” of income distribution which “assigns to everyone what he has specifically created.” That is, if markets are not “obstructed,” pay levels should be “equal [to] that part of the product of industry which is traceable to labor itself.” As productivity increased, Clark argued, wages would rise at an equal rate. The idea that compensation increases should equal increases in average labor productivity per worker as a matter of national wage policy, or a wage norm, is traceable to the President’s Council of Economic Advisors under the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. This macroeconomic approach was anchored in the fact that if compensation rises in step with productivity growth, then both unit labor costs and capital’s versus labor’s share of national income will remain constant. This “Keynesian Consensus” never questioned the fairness of the initial capital/labor split, but it at least offered workers a share of the fruits of future economic growth. Sources and Calculations: This calculation is based on the 1972 average real hourly wage expressed in 2009 dollars, $17.88, plus $2.95 per hour in benefits, with total compensation [wages + benefits] equal to $20.83 per hour for non-supervisory workers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2010a, 2010b: 85-90; Economic Policy Institute, 2011). The growth of private productivity from 1972 to 2009 was 92.7%. Adjusting the productivity figure (downward) to account for lower economy-wide productivity, consistent deflation in both producer prices and consumer prices, and a rising rate of depreciation, the net growth of “usable” productivity was 55.5% (Baker 2007). If workers had been paid the value of their annual productivity increases (as they essentially were prior to the early 1970s) they would have received an average of $35.98 per hour in compensation in 2009 instead of the $23.14 they actually received. The differential was $12.84. Workers worked an average of 39.8 hours per week in 2009, so $511 of compensation that they would have received under conditions prior to the early 1970s instead was diverted. On an annual basis of 1,768 hours worked per year, according to the OECD, each worker lost to capital an average of $22,701. Adjusting the 88,239,000 production and non-supervisory workers employed in 2009 to the lower 1972 labor force participation rate equivalent of 84,180,000 workers, the total of purloined workers’ compensation for 2009 comes to $1.91 trillion (Council of Economic Advisors, 2010: Tables B-47, B-49; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011 Table B-6). As the figure below shows, both Clark’s idea of a “natural law” of distribution and Keynesian national wage policy have ceased to function since the onset of the neoliberal/supply-side era beginning in the early 1970s. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0711cypher.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #137 July 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotemajority of what you have said in this thread has been hogwash. not even hogwash - the Ford example is a testimony to free trade with minimal government. and also an example of how increasing the basic wage can increase productivity... no it's NOT - it's an example about competition and that increasing the wage at a single company will allow that single company to steal away the better workers from other companies it won't work if you increase the wages at all companies and take away that competition for the better paying jobs you cannot be this dense - no one is that dense ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #138 July 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotemajority of what you have said in this thread has been hogwash. not even hogwash - the Ford example is a testimony to free trade with minimal government. and also an example of how increasing the basic wage can increase productivity... no it's NOT - it's an example about competition and that increasing the wage at a single company or a single country...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #139 July 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotemajority of what you have said in this thread has been hogwash. not even hogwash - the Ford example is a testimony to free trade with minimal government. and also an example of how increasing the basic wage can increase productivity... no it's NOT - it's an example about competition and that increasing the wage at a single company or a single country... I did address that. Though that's a bit better, but we have an economy now that we can hire people outside our borders. That's a big change since Ford's time. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #140 July 26, 2011 you must agree that the market seems a little unbalanced... QuoteThe upward redistribution has remained as hidden as possible. The forms it has taken—as bonuses, bloated salaries, elephantine stock options, padded consulting fees, outsized compensation to boards of directors, sumptuous conferences, palatial offices complete with original artwork, retinues of superfluous “support” staff, hunting lodges, private corporate dining rooms, regal retirement agreements, and so on—defy exact categorization. Some would appear as profit, some as interest, some as dividends, realized capital gains, gigantic pension programs, retained earnings, or owners’ income, with the remainder deeply buried as “costs of doing business.” In the final analysis, the $1.91 trillion figure is only an approximation, designed to make more concrete a concept that has lacked an important quantitative dimension. Of course, had compensation increases matched “usable” productivity increases, workers would have paid taxes on the wage portion of their compensation, leaving them with much less than the $1.91 trillion in their pockets. Meanwhile, as these funds are shifted over to capital (and management salaries), federal, state, and local taxes are paid on the portion which appears as declared income. This results in a considerable drop in the net after-tax transfer amount actually pocketed by capital through their appropriation of the productivity increases of non-supervisory workers. Even so, their haul remains a staggering—even astonishing—sum. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0711cypher.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #141 July 26, 2011 Quoteyou must agree that the market seems a little unbalanced oh - I'm a big fan of getting rid of all writeoffs, subsidies, loopholes, etc etc etc. Also penalties, deductions, etc. Government should get out of 'encouraging' and 'discouraging' spending behaviors and just tax income. And I really do like my mortgage interest deduction - I really do, but it's another source of social experimentation that should go along with all the stuff the rich leverage legally today as well. a simple tax code, a simple tax rate, would generate income from everybody - especially those that play the system (the very poor that pay nothing, and the very rich that hide too much) and it wouldn't require raising the tax rates at all that's the revenue raising I'd do. but we still have a spending addiction and that's where the real work has to happen ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #142 July 26, 2011 Quote >you've forgotten the extra $20 the company is making You are correct! And that is a good thing overall. Cutting minimum wage would allow the company to make even more. _______________________________ That is only part of the equation . now factor in competition.( Democrats hate this word). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #143 July 27, 2011 looks like you've flipflopped your way outta here billvon (it was getting a little hot for you - all those facts and your model not working and all) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
