More jobs or higher production wages?

[The Rabbi]

You really don't know very much, do you?

Please, educate me. Thrill me with your intellect.

Go take an econ course, sonny.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[The Rabbi]

People laugh at what they don't understand.
You don't understand econ.

 

[BillyV]

You really don't know very much, do you?

Please, educate me. Thrill me with your intellect.

Go take an econ course, sonny.

You know, I’m not sure how I’m going to recover from that barb and your rapier wit!

So let’s review…..So far in this thread you have: one totally unsupported claim, and seven unforced insults, one of which with a link to a decade of inflation figures (great job, by the way; I don’t think we could have found that on our own!) . Value added to discussion? Zero. Prime reason for the ignore function. Don’t change your avatar; Bozo is perfect for you. Go waste someone else’s time, Grandpa; I’m finished with you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Please, educate me. Thrill me with your intellect.

Go take an econ course, sonny.

You know, I’m not sure how I’m going to recover from that barb and your rapier wit!

So let’s review…..So far in this thread you have: one totally unsupported claim, and seven unforced insults, one of which with a link to a decade of inflation figures (great job, by the way; I don’t think we could have found that on our own!) . Value added to discussion? Zero. Prime reason for the ignore function. Don’t change your avatar; Bozo is perfect for you. Go waste someone else’s time, Grandpa; I’m finished with you.

I've been gone from the board for about 6 months and it appears that Rabbi has lost a few cylinders. Not like the old days when he'd really belittle folks without contributing a darn thing.. Just an IV bag of anger there.

Anyway -- I thought some more about the choice you proposed and I'm ALL FOR hiring 20 people at $10/hr instead of just 10 people at $20/hr. I'll need a bigger break room, Christmas party will cost more, I get to watch people sitting on the hands instead of working, but what employer wouldn't take that deal?

Here's the fallacy. That doesn't help the workers. They're ALL getting screwed. Employer gets 20 Horsepower for the price of 10. After all if they don't work like 20 people should work -- you've also reduced productivity.

BUT --- I DON'T NEED 20 people.. I need 10 good ones. You can't manufacture excess labor capacity. PARTICULARLY in the new paradigm for ultra-efficient manufacturing that you'd need to have the jobs come back to the USA.

But look at the bright side.. If we DID invest and target robotics, automation, materials, supply chain magic type stuff to make America a 21st century manufacturer. We'd have A LOT more jobs than we do now -- and we'd stop the leakage of our Research and Development higher end jobs overseas.. And there are low, mid and high level jobs to be had if we wanted to pull that off...

 

[Wiseacre]

Go take an econ course, sonny.

You know, I’m not sure how I’m going to recover from that barb and your rapier wit!

So let’s review…..So far in this thread you have: one totally unsupported claim, and seven unforced insults, one of which with a link to a decade of inflation figures (great job, by the way; I don’t think we could have found that on our own!) . Value added to discussion? Zero. Prime reason for the ignore function. Don’t change your avatar; Bozo is perfect for you. Go waste someone else’s time, Grandpa; I’m finished with you.

I've been gone from the board for about 6 months and it appears that Rabbi has lost a few cylinders. Not like the old days when he'd really belittle folks without contributing a darn thing.. Just an IV bag of anger there.

Anyway -- I thought some more about the choice you proposed and I'm ALL FOR hiring 20 people at $10/hr instead of just 10 people at $20/hr. I'll need a bigger break room, Christmas party will cost more, I get to watch people sitting on the hands instead of working, but what employer wouldn't take that deal?

Here's the fallacy. That doesn't help the workers. They're ALL getting screwed. Employer gets 20 Horsepower for the price of 10. After all if they don't work like 20 people should work -- you've also reduced productivity.

BUT --- I DON'T NEED 20 people.. I need 10 good ones. You can't manufacture excess labor capacity. PARTICULARLY in the new paradigm for ultra-efficient manufacturing that you'd need to have the jobs come back to the USA.

But look at the bright side.. If we DID invest and target robotics, automation, materials, supply chain magic type stuff to make America a 21st century manufacturer. We'd have A LOT more jobs than we do now -- and we'd stop the leakage of our Research and Development higher end jobs overseas.. And there are low, mid and high level jobs to be had if we wanted to pull that off...

I gotta take issue with this, if you don't mind. Workers who have a job, even a low paying one, are better off than those who don't. It's easier to get a better paying job if you've already got one; plus you've got a chance to add to your resume, and possibly a chance to advance with your current employer. Some people think you're better off interning somewhere for awhile at no pay, just to get the experience.

You say the employer gets 20 workers for the price of 10; not true, the price is whatever the labor market says it is. If the employer can hire 20 people at the lower wage, nobody is getting screwed. Those workers don't have to accept the job if offered at the wage prescribed. Presumeably they've got the required skills; if not then the employer will have to spend the training dollars to bring them up to speed. And if they are not being compensated fairly according to market value then they can find another job and the employer will have to spend more HR money on more hiring.

If you don't need 20 people then what're you doing hiring 20 people instead of the 10 you actually need. I must've misunderstood your point here.

 

[flacaltenn]

You know, I’m not sure how I’m going to recover from that barb and your rapier wit!

So let’s review…..So far in this thread you have: one totally unsupported claim, and seven unforced insults, one of which with a link to a decade of inflation figures (great job, by the way; I don’t think we could have found that on our own!) . Value added to discussion? Zero. Prime reason for the ignore function. Don’t change your avatar; Bozo is perfect for you. Go waste someone else’s time, Grandpa; I’m finished with you.

I've been gone from the board for about 6 months and it appears that Rabbi has lost a few cylinders. Not like the old days when he'd really belittle folks without contributing a darn thing.. Just an IV bag of anger there.

Anyway -- I thought some more about the choice you proposed and I'm ALL FOR hiring 20 people at $10/hr instead of just 10 people at $20/hr. I'll need a bigger break room, Christmas party will cost more, I get to watch people sitting on the hands instead of working, but what employer wouldn't take that deal?

Here's the fallacy. That doesn't help the workers. They're ALL getting screwed. Employer gets 20 Horsepower for the price of 10. After all if they don't work like 20 people should work -- you've also reduced productivity.

BUT --- I DON'T NEED 20 people.. I need 10 good ones. You can't manufacture excess labor capacity. PARTICULARLY in the new paradigm for ultra-efficient manufacturing that you'd need to have the jobs come back to the USA.

But look at the bright side.. If we DID invest and target robotics, automation, materials, supply chain magic type stuff to make America a 21st century manufacturer. We'd have A LOT more jobs than we do now -- and we'd stop the leakage of our Research and Development higher end jobs overseas.. And there are low, mid and high level jobs to be had if we wanted to pull that off...

I gotta take issue with this, if you don't mind. Workers who have a job, even a low paying one, are better off than those who don't. It's easier to get a better paying job if you've already got one; plus you've got a chance to add to your resume, and possibly a chance to advance with your current employer. Some people think you're better off interning somewhere for awhile at no pay, just to get the experience.

You say the employer gets 20 workers for the price of 10; not true, the price is whatever the labor market says it is. If the employer can hire 20 people at the lower wage, nobody is getting screwed. Those workers don't have to accept the job if offered at the wage prescribed. Presumeably they've got the required skills; if not then the employer will have to spend the training dollars to bring them up to speed. And if they are not being compensated fairly according to market value then they can find another job and the employer will have to spend more HR money on more hiring.

If you don't need 20 people then what're you doing hiring 20 people instead of the 10 you actually need. I must've misunderstood your point here.

WiseAcre-- it's late and no shit -- I've got a colonoscopy in the morning.. Haven't eaten in 30 hours, So I'm little off tonight.

How do you expand the labor market at all if employers don't hire MORE workers than they need when you agree to cut wages. The whole purpose of dropping wages is to INCREASE the labor pool ain't it?

We're talking manufacturing here. Not a small service biz where yeah I might hire one or two installers now if the price was right. So you'd be right if you were thinking Main Street kind of job.

If my factory needs 10 workers -- I hire at the prevailing wage. Prevailing wage goes down, I STILL hire 10 workers. (i was being facetious about hiring 20)

No new American manufacturing plant is gonna open up based on wage competition with the Chinese. We got to get that model out of our heads. It's gonna open up because the staff has figured out how to make the cheap labor advantage go away using 21st century technology.

 

[The Rabbi]

WiseAcre-- it's late and no shit -- I've got a colonoscopy in the morning.. Haven't eaten in 30 hours, So I'm little off tonight.

How do you expand the labor market at all if employers don't hire MORE workers than they need when you agree to cut wages. The whole purpose of dropping wages is to INCREASE the labor pool ain't it?

We're talking manufacturing here. Not a small service biz where yeah I might hire one or two installers now if the price was right. So you'd be right if you were thinking Main Street kind of job.

If my factory needs 10 workers -- I hire at the prevailing wage. Prevailing wage goes down, I STILL hire 10 workers. (i was being facetious about hiring 20)

No new American manufacturing plant is gonna open up based on wage competition with the Chinese. We got to get that model out of our heads. It's gonna open up because the staff has figured out how to make the cheap labor advantage go away using 21st century technology.

No, if you need 10 workers, you hire 10 workers. If you need 20 you hire 20.
People look at the hourly rate of Chinese workers and say we can't compete. That is the wrong figure to use. You look at unit labor cost. And the U.S. is becoming far more competitive because we are far more efficient.
In U.S., a Cheaper Labor Pool - WSJ.com

btw, good luck on the colonoscopy. I have one in my future this year.

 

[editec]

Preference: More jobs or higher wages?

This is a false dichotomy.

 

[BillyV]

Preference: More jobs or higher wages?

This is a false dichotomy.

Interesting; so you don't agree with the Wall Street Journal writer that "The wage lag is a key factor....[and] added jobs that probably otherwise wouldn't exist ." On what do you base your opinion? I look at wage rates as a key component in some cases and not so much in others; the closure of the Caterpillar plant in Canada in favor of the US due to higher Canadian wage demands comes to mind as one where it was key. It isn't only between US and Asia.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is no trade off. You can have both. You can have neither as well. People get paid for being productive.

Does that mean members of Congress aren't people?]

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no trade off. You can have both. You can have neither as well. People get paid for being productive.

Does that mean members of Congress aren't people?]

It means your stupidity is showing again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Preference: More jobs or higher wages?

This is a false dichotomy.

Interesting; so you don't agree with the Wall Street Journal writer that "The wage lag is a key factor....[and] added jobs that probably otherwise wouldn't exist ." On what do you base your opinion? I look at wage rates as a key component in some cases and not so much in others; the closure of the Caterpillar plant in Canada in favor of the US due to higher Canadian wage demands comes to mind as one where it was key. It isn't only between US and Asia.

You understand you made a false inference from the article, right?
This marks you as below average intelligence. No surprise.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Speaking of below average intelligence....

It's three, Rick, remember? Three.....

 

[The Rabbi]

Speaking of below average intelligence....

It's three, Rick, remember? Three.....

Rick who?
I'll bet you think he's monetized the debt by paying off his credit card.

 

[Wiseacre]

I've been gone from the board for about 6 months and it appears that Rabbi has lost a few cylinders. Not like the old days when he'd really belittle folks without contributing a darn thing.. Just an IV bag of anger there.

Anyway -- I thought some more about the choice you proposed and I'm ALL FOR hiring 20 people at $10/hr instead of just 10 people at $20/hr. I'll need a bigger break room, Christmas party will cost more, I get to watch people sitting on the hands instead of working, but what employer wouldn't take that deal?

Here's the fallacy. That doesn't help the workers. They're ALL getting screwed. Employer gets 20 Horsepower for the price of 10. After all if they don't work like 20 people should work -- you've also reduced productivity.

BUT --- I DON'T NEED 20 people.. I need 10 good ones. You can't manufacture excess labor capacity. PARTICULARLY in the new paradigm for ultra-efficient manufacturing that you'd need to have the jobs come back to the USA.

But look at the bright side.. If we DID invest and target robotics, automation, materials, supply chain magic type stuff to make America a 21st century manufacturer. We'd have A LOT more jobs than we do now -- and we'd stop the leakage of our Research and Development higher end jobs overseas.. And there are low, mid and high level jobs to be had if we wanted to pull that off...

I gotta take issue with this, if you don't mind. Workers who have a job, even a low paying one, are better off than those who don't. It's easier to get a better paying job if you've already got one; plus you've got a chance to add to your resume, and possibly a chance to advance with your current employer. Some people think you're better off interning somewhere for awhile at no pay, just to get the experience.

You say the employer gets 20 workers for the price of 10; not true, the price is whatever the labor market says it is. If the employer can hire 20 people at the lower wage, nobody is getting screwed. Those workers don't have to accept the job if offered at the wage prescribed. Presumeably they've got the required skills; if not then the employer will have to spend the training dollars to bring them up to speed. And if they are not being compensated fairly according to market value then they can find another job and the employer will have to spend more HR money on more hiring.

If you don't need 20 people then what're you doing hiring 20 people instead of the 10 you actually need. I must've misunderstood your point here.

WiseAcre-- it's late and no shit -- I've got a colonoscopy in the morning.. Haven't eaten in 30 hours, So I'm little off tonight.

How do you expand the labor market at all if employers don't hire MORE workers than they need when you agree to cut wages. The whole purpose of dropping wages is to INCREASE the labor pool ain't it?

We're talking manufacturing here. Not a small service biz where yeah I might hire one or two installers now if the price was right. So you'd be right if you were thinking Main Street kind of job.

If my factory needs 10 workers -- I hire at the prevailing wage. Prevailing wage goes down, I STILL hire 10 workers. (i was being facetious about hiring 20)

No new American manufacturing plant is gonna open up based on wage competition with the Chinese. We got to get that model out of our heads. It's gonna open up because the staff has figured out how to make the cheap labor advantage go away using 21st century technology.

A colonoscopy is no fun, been there done that 3 times and it don't get any easier. [No shit - is that a double entendre? ] Still puzzled by what you're saying though. The purpose of dropping wages for the employer is to reduce labor cost and increase the profit margin. That's it, they don't care much about the labor pool, although they do get a nice PR boost in the local area when they start hiring.

If you're talking about lowering the minimum wage, which I believe has been done lately in some European countries, and maybe proposed in others, then yes, I'd say that will lead to more job creation. It may become advantagious to hire new people rather than pay overtime to your existing employees; for a variety of reasons, employment tends to go up. Wages aren't the only determinant here, right? Health insurance, and all the other benefits that cost you money for each additional employee have to be taken into consideration.

As far as the Chinese and other foreign competitors are concerned, I think the wage gap is not as great as it once was. I also think shipping costs have risen dramatically, so unless you can sell your stuff locally somewhere else in the world, it isn't the profit panacea it used to be. And the rest of the world is slowing down, economically speaking. I think that's part of the reason why some US corps are bringing some offshore businesses back home.

Technological advances have something to do with it, but I wish we'd sweeten the deal by making the business climate here in the US more competitive. Not just about labor costs and business taxes, but also regulations and energy and a host of other factors that influence the decision to open (or close) a plant here. Good luck with your scope, hope it comes back clean with so problems.