billvon 3,088 #26 November 30, 2011 >Seems to me you're argueing against the nature of the modern economy - growth is >gained through increased productivity. Not arguing against it at all. Productivity goes up, fewer people make more money. Just as in your example. You, however, seem to be dead set against fewer people making more money. >please make yourself clear. was ford right or wrong? To a socialist? He was dead wrong. He refused to hire hardworking commoners and instead provided exclusive high paying jobs to the 1%ers. To a capitalist? He was right. He made more money than his competitors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #27 November 30, 2011 Quote Despite the fact that doing so on everybody results in no specific advantage to any of the companies. so a level playing field across companies is achieved and the economy is balanced back towards labour and not 'making money from money'. result... (with the added benefit that the demand for migrant labour is reduced)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
SkyDekker 1,465 #28 November 30, 2011 Quote so was ford right or wrong to increase the pay of his workers? seems to me he was right... You are wrong in your argument, whether or not Ford was right in raising the pay of his decreased workforce 60 years ago. From a business perspective if teh government forced a doubling of minimum wage, I would fire half my staff and force the other half to work twice as hard. Result, productivity up, unemployment up, Economy in tank. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #29 November 30, 2011 Quote so was ford right or wrong to increase the pay of his workers? seems to me he was right... For his business he was, but he used it as motivation! No one else paid that, so, if you lost your Ford job, you lost out on potential income, that is a HUGE motivator! Don't make the next reach, it is too far out of arms length. You will be jumping, with out a net. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #30 November 30, 2011 Quote It's essentially a request to print vast amounts of cash for no reason other than to devalue the dollar significantly. there's been an active policy to devalue the dollar - that's how the us is maintaining its competitiveness. i agree with you that raising the minimum wage has the same effect as quantitative easing (except the result is much greater ast it comes from the 'ground up' and not 'trickle down')...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 #31 November 30, 2011 Quote Quote It's essentially a request to print vast amounts of cash for no reason other than to devalue the dollar significantly. In all fairness, a devaluation of the US Dollar is exactly what the US needs to deal with their debt load. However, raising minimum wage is not the way to go about it. it's exactly the way to go about 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
matthewcline 0 #32 November 30, 2011 It doesn't work, each small business person here has told you why, history shows us why, why won't you listen? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 November 30, 2011 Quote so a level playing field across companies is achieved and the economy is balanced back towards labour and not 'making money from money'. result... (with the added benefit that the demand for migrant labour is reduced) "A Level Playing Field" is exactly the scenario where this doesn't work. Micro, it works (for company B) "If I work harder, I can get the pay at Company B and leave my low paying Company A job." Macro, it sucks "why should I work harder for my pay increase here at Company A, Thanks to DreamDancer, I already get paid the same vs going to Company B or any of the other companies" - then both (all) have to lay off a lot of people or go out of business. (I do think your parenthetical might actually happen - but why do you hate immigrants and minorities?) ... 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 #34 November 30, 2011 Quote Quote growth is gained through increased productivity... absolutely true however, you are not making that case - you are making the case that increased wages will increase productivity - which is only true on a preferential basis add up all the preferential cases (like ford) - and you have a macro effect...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 #35 November 30, 2011 Quote It doesn't work, each small business person here has told you why, history shows us why, why won't you listen? Why don't you join him? Ultra short term thinking is the cool paradigm - screw next month all the cool kids are doing it ... 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 3,088 #36 November 30, 2011 >add up all the preferential cases (like ford) - and you have a macro effect... True. Massive unemployment as jobs are lost to automation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #37 November 30, 2011 Quote >Seems to me you're argueing against the nature of the modern economy - growth is >gained through increased productivity. Not arguing against it at all. Productivity goes up, fewer people make more money. Just as in your example. and to take your argument to its end point - the 1% make huge sums of money, eventually unbalance the economy, and the system then crashes... (very marxist)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 #38 November 30, 2011 Quote add up all the preferential cases (like ford) - and you have a macro effect... that's just idiodic - by definition, they don't add up. You can't legislate productivity, it has to be driven by a competitive nudge. Your little theory would seriously hamper productivity and make things so much worse - put a huge percentage out of work, AND ruin the businesses that are left. you can reference the last thread where you took this tangent and go poke at that ... 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 #39 November 30, 2011 Quote Quote so was ford right or wrong to increase the pay of his workers? seems to me he was right... You are wrong in your argument, whether or not Ford was right in raising the pay of his decreased workforce 60 years ago. From a business perspective if teh government forced a doubling of minimum wage, I would fire half my staff and force the other half to work twice as hard. Result, productivity up, unemployment up, Economy in tank. you agree that your productivity would double...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
billvon 3,088 #40 November 30, 2011 >and to take your argument to its end point - the 1% make huge sums of >money, eventually unbalance the economy, and the system then crashes... OK. Yet oddly you used just that as an example of what everyone should do. Do you now not want the smaller number of high paying jobs that companies like Ford provided through automation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #41 November 30, 2011 Quote Quote Quote so was ford right or wrong to increase the pay of his workers? seems to me he was right... You are wrong in your argument, whether or not Ford was right in raising the pay of his decreased workforce 60 years ago. From a business perspective if teh government forced a doubling of minimum wage, I would fire half my staff and force the other half to work twice as hard. Result, productivity up, unemployment up, Economy in tank. you agree that your productivity would double... still idiodic - half the staff, twice the effort (if even possible) would just cancel out. AND have the added benefit of the other half being unemployed - so the remaining employees would have less take home pay to support the out of work population ... 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
SkyDekker 1,465 #42 November 30, 2011 Productivity per person would go up, total productivity of the company would not go up. Investment in further automation would go up as well, would replace as many peple as I possibly could to get better cost certainty. Or would just move the company to Bangladesh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 November 30, 2011 Quote . I agree ... 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 #44 November 30, 2011 Quote >add up all the preferential cases (like ford) - and you have a macro effect... True. Massive unemployment as jobs are lost to automation. Quote The Luddites were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested – often by destroying mechanised looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life. The movement was named after General Ned Ludd or King Ludd, a mythical figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludditestay 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
DesertAttorney 0 #45 November 30, 2011 Quote so ford was wrong to raise the pay of his workers... Right or wrong, it was his choice. It is not a basis to pass laws requiring others to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 November 30, 2011 Quote Quote >add up all the preferential cases (like ford) - and you have a macro effect... True. Massive unemployment as jobs are lost to automation. Quote The Luddites were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested – often by destroying mechanised looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life. The movement was named after General Ned Ludd or King Ludd, a mythical figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite Good article - see how silly it is when written this way... The Luddites were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested – often by destroying artifically imposed wage increases based on no corresponding need for improved skill sets - such a better weaving equipment – against the changes imposed on the free market by an ignorant government law, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life. ... 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
kelpdiver 2 #47 November 30, 2011 Quote Quote Quote growth is gained through increased productivity... absolutely true however, you are not making that case - you are making the case that increased wages will increase productivity - which is only true on a preferential basis add up all the preferential cases (like ford) - and you have a macro effect... Yes, you get America, 2011. The winners are doing well. And it's not just the 1%. The best people of every field - say those a standard deviation above the norm - are reaping the benefits of efficiency. They are getting the wage increases, not getting laid off, have recruiters calling them to offer work. The losers - you know all about them. Long term unemployment, stagnant wage growth, legitimate fear that it will only get worse. Just as you think should happen (for some reason). Forcibly raising wages doesn't get the effect you assert. Ford paid its employees more because it had a disruptive improvement in process that allowed 1 person to replace 10. Those are few and far between. These days it's fighting to stay in business at all. And it's the healthiest of the 3 in Detroit. It's fair to blame their infatuation with the SUV as a big cause, but it's inarguable that the burden of pensions/health care for retirees looms largest. Those benefits were never sustainable in a model where increased efficiency meant fewer and fewer contributors, nevermind the problem that the big 3 now have to share the sales with automakers from around the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #48 November 30, 2011 Quote >and to take your argument to its end point - the 1% make huge sums of >money, eventually unbalance the economy, and the system then crashes... OK. Yet oddly you used just that as an example of what everyone should do. Do you now not want the smaller number of high paying jobs that companies like Ford provided through automation? ok - you've done a logical 'flip'. well done - progress...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 #49 November 30, 2011 Quote Quote so ford was wrong to raise the pay of his workers... Right or wrong, it was his choice. It is not a basis to pass laws requiring others to do so. there are already minimum wage laws - the numbers just need to be updated...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
SkyDekker 1,465 #50 November 30, 2011 Quote the numbers just need to be updated... And what according to you should be the number? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
