Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
State control folks love to talk about all the jobs that their leader created and that when some guy says he built a factory they say "you didn't build that!"....hundreds of thousands of factory jobs trump created...
imho it's a crock. The only way a job can be created is when someone decides to pay someone else to do something. If Mr. T did not go and offer to pay someone to work in a factory then he did not create a factory job.
You say that 68 percent factors inflation. Does it factor population growth,,,,,capita?from: The Social Machine
Kevin D. Williamson March 21, 2017 4:00 AM
Jobs are a means, not an end.
Funny thing about American manufacturing: The good news about what’s happening at American factories often sounds like bad news to politicians.
American factories are one of the wonders of the world, and, in spite of what President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and other lightly informed populists claim, they are humming. U.S. manufacturing output is about 68 percent higher today in real terms (meaning inflation-adjusted terms) than it was before NAFTA was enacted; manufacturing output is about double in real terms what it was in the 1980s and more than three times what it was in the 1950s. As our factories grow more efficient, output per man-hour has grown, too, which is what troubles the populists and demagogues: Our factories employ a much smaller share of the U.S. work force than they once did
...The purpose of an automobile factory is not to “create jobs,” as the politicians like to say. Its function is not to add to the employment rolls with good wages and UAW benefits, adding to the local tax base and helping to sustain the community — as desirable as all those things are. The purpose of an automobile factory is not to create jobs — it is to create automobiles...
...people who have an explicit legal obligation to work not on our behalf but on behalf of their shareholders do a pretty good job of giving us what we want; the people who vow to work on our behalf do not. That is a paradox only if you do not think about it too much, and not thinking about it too much is the business that politicians are in...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *This is why the rhetoric about 'we need more high paying manufacturing jobs' is so dumb.
Yeah, this thread will most probably bring out that old tired rant about "people need a living wage", "demand is what makes production", and "people live on Main St., not Wall St.". We've heard it a lot in today's discourse and it usually ends w/ investors throwing up their hands and saying "aw hell, if building factories can't make products I'll just give to charity and go home." Let's face it, high wages sound good to the worker but a factory sees wages as a cost, not an income.
It's a Team, Not a One-Man ShowOwners Aren't EarnersOinkonomics for Stuck PigsIf you have an assemblyline, with 50 workers on it, and you bring in automation, you will lose workers. The machines with do the work, and there might be jobs for 5 or so maintaining the machines.
As for fewer hours, if it is not a full-time job you usually don't get any benefits.
Those are the porcine plutocratic parasites' rules. If part-time work produces the same as full-time work used to, then it deserves the benefits of a full-time job. Automation will reduce the workday and the workers whose jobs you so sadistically think you have killed will take turns.
With the introduction of trucks, the former horse-and-buggy delivery drivers made many more deliveries and got paid more. That money circulated so that there would be buyers for the greater number of deliveries. The smug conceited Scrooges better not insist on net job losses, or they will have to run for their lives.
That is only one of the benefits of automation. Others include greater productivity, far fewer safety issues,
The idea that a factory owner would spend tons of money to automate, and then increase the workers' hourly pay too, is ridiculous.
The employees create the owner's wealth, so the idea that they would make him rich so he could afford to buy machines that put them out of work is ridiculous. We do not have to worship and sacrifice for the bosses just because it gives you a smug feeling of importance when you preach that to us.
It does not make me feel anything to discuss this issue.
But the owner pays for the buildings, equipment, materials, and pays to be compliant with all the regulations. He risks all that in order to make a profit. He only gets paid if he makes a profit.
The employees get paid for performing a task. They get paid by the hour to do work. No risk.
What the owner does with his business is his choice. If he brings in automation, and lays off workers, it is his risk.
The employees cover his risk and all his start-up expenses. Besides, risk means stupidity, as in, "That was a pretty risky thing you did." Even more besides, he's usually working with a bank loan, which means the bankers are the ones taking the risk. And most besides, the employees risk the outcome that this conceited parasite will mess up the business and lay them off.
from: The Social Machine
Kevin D. Williamson March 21, 2017 4:00 AM
Jobs are a means, not an end.
Funny thing about American manufacturing: The good news about what’s happening at American factories often sounds like bad news to politicians.
American factories are one of the wonders of the world, and, in spite of what President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and other lightly informed populists claim, they are humming. U.S. manufacturing output is about 68 percent higher today in real terms (meaning inflation-adjusted terms) than it was before NAFTA was enacted; manufacturing output is about double in real terms what it was in the 1980s and more than three times what it was in the 1950s. As our factories grow more efficient, output per man-hour has grown, too, which is what troubles the populists and demagogues: Our factories employ a much smaller share of the U.S. work force than they once did
...The purpose of an automobile factory is not to “create jobs,” as the politicians like to say. Its function is not to add to the employment rolls with good wages and UAW benefits, adding to the local tax base and helping to sustain the community — as desirable as all those things are. The purpose of an automobile factory is not to create jobs — it is to create automobiles...
...people who have an explicit legal obligation to work not on our behalf but on behalf of their shareholders do a pretty good job of giving us what we want; the people who vow to work on our behalf do not. That is a paradox only if you do not think about it too much, and not thinking about it too much is the business that politicians are in...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *This is why the rhetoric about 'we need more high paying manufacturing jobs' is so dumb.
Yeah, this thread will most probably bring out that old tired rant about "people need a living wage", "demand is what makes production", and "people live on Main St., not Wall St.". We've heard it a lot in today's discourse and it usually ends w/ investors throwing up their hands and saying "aw hell, if building factories can't make products I'll just give to charity and go home." Let's face it, high wages sound good to the worker but a factory sees wages as a cost, not an income.
Why does Germany have twice the percentage of manufacturing employment we do?
They don't have our pathetic liberal union teachers that's why
.
The employees create the owner's wealth,.
from: The Social Machine
Kevin D. Williamson March 21, 2017 4:00 AM
Jobs are a means, not an end.
Funny thing about American manufacturing: The good news about what’s happening at American factories often sounds like bad news to politicians.
American factories are one of the wonders of the world, and, in spite of what President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and other lightly informed populists claim, they are humming. U.S. manufacturing output is about 68 percent higher today in real terms (meaning inflation-adjusted terms) than it was before NAFTA was enacted; manufacturing output is about double in real terms what it was in the 1980s and more than three times what it was in the 1950s. As our factories grow more efficient, output per man-hour has grown, too, which is what troubles the populists and demagogues: Our factories employ a much smaller share of the U.S. work force than they once did
...The purpose of an automobile factory is not to “create jobs,” as the politicians like to say. Its function is not to add to the employment rolls with good wages and UAW benefits, adding to the local tax base and helping to sustain the community — as desirable as all those things are. The purpose of an automobile factory is not to create jobs — it is to create automobiles...
...people who have an explicit legal obligation to work not on our behalf but on behalf of their shareholders do a pretty good job of giving us what we want; the people who vow to work on our behalf do not. That is a paradox only if you do not think about it too much, and not thinking about it too much is the business that politicians are in...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *This is why the rhetoric about 'we need more high paying manufacturing jobs' is so dumb.
Yeah, this thread will most probably bring out that old tired rant about "people need a living wage", "demand is what makes production", and "people live on Main St., not Wall St.". We've heard it a lot in today's discourse and it usually ends w/ investors throwing up their hands and saying "aw hell, if building factories can't make products I'll just give to charity and go home." Let's face it, high wages sound good to the worker but a factory sees wages as a cost, not an income.
Why does Germany have twice the percentage of manufacturing employment we do?
They don't have our pathetic liberal union teachers that's why
.
Possibly. But imo, the biggest difference is that they don't have a trade policy based on Ideology, but on national interest.
from: The Social Machine
Kevin D. Williamson March 21, 2017 4:00 AM
Jobs are a means, not an end.
Funny thing about American manufacturing: The good news about what’s happening at American factories often sounds like bad news to politicians.
American factories are one of the wonders of the world, and, in spite of what President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and other lightly informed populists claim, they are humming. U.S. manufacturing output is about 68 percent higher today in real terms (meaning inflation-adjusted terms) than it was before NAFTA was enacted; manufacturing output is about double in real terms what it was in the 1980s and more than three times what it was in the 1950s. As our factories grow more efficient, output per man-hour has grown, too, which is what troubles the populists and demagogues: Our factories employ a much smaller share of the U.S. work force than they once did
...The purpose of an automobile factory is not to “create jobs,” as the politicians like to say. Its function is not to add to the employment rolls with good wages and UAW benefits, adding to the local tax base and helping to sustain the community — as desirable as all those things are. The purpose of an automobile factory is not to create jobs — it is to create automobiles...
...people who have an explicit legal obligation to work not on our behalf but on behalf of their shareholders do a pretty good job of giving us what we want; the people who vow to work on our behalf do not. That is a paradox only if you do not think about it too much, and not thinking about it too much is the business that politicians are in...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *This is why the rhetoric about 'we need more high paying manufacturing jobs' is so dumb.
Yeah, this thread will most probably bring out that old tired rant about "people need a living wage", "demand is what makes production", and "people live on Main St., not Wall St.". We've heard it a lot in today's discourse and it usually ends w/ investors throwing up their hands and saying "aw hell, if building factories can't make products I'll just give to charity and go home." Let's face it, high wages sound good to the worker but a factory sees wages as a cost, not an income.
Why does Germany have twice the percentage of manufacturing employment we do?
They don't have our pathetic liberal union teachers that's why
.
Possibly. But imo, the biggest difference is that they don't have a trade policy based on Ideology, but on national interest.
Germans have always been great at manufacturing, Consumer Reports just ranked Porsche BMW and Audi as the 3 best auto companies in the world.
The US is a consumer economy, and not a manufacturing one. That is why it makes no sense to intentionally sabotage consumer markets in order to accommodate non-competitive low paying factory jobs.
The US is a consumer economy, and not a manufacturing one. That is why it makes no sense to intentionally sabotage consumer markets in order to accommodate non-competitive low paying factory jobs.
Manufacturing is a large and vital part of the American economy.
Ignoring and dismissing the interests of American manufacturers and their American workers is not a sound or reasonable government policy.
So we should support the consumer market to protect shit-paying jobs selling imported products to people trying to live off of service industry pay? I'm sure that will work out really well.
Manufacturing is a large and vital part of the American economy.
False! It is a rather small and irrelevant part of the US economy. Most manufacturing is done overseas, and for good reason. Even European counties can generally manufacture at higher quality for less cost than American manufacturing.
Ignoring and dismissing the interests of American manufacturers and their American workers is not a sound or reasonable government policy.
Neither is destroying a much larger sector of the economy to protect a miniscule sector. By all means boost manufacturing power, but you shouldn't fuck over the rest of the economy to do it.
Manufacturing is not small and irrelevant.
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
GDP - composition, by sector of origin:
agriculture: 1.1%
industry: 19.4%
services: 79.5%
(2016 est.)
2. THe assumption that we have trade imbalances because we cannot compete is not supported.
3. IN what way is the health of American manufacturing directly inverse to the rest of the economy?
Manufacturing is not small and irrelevant.
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
GDP - composition, by sector of origin:
agriculture: 1.1%
industry: 19.4%
services: 79.5%
(2016 est.)
Thanks for proving my point.
2. THe assumption that we have trade imbalances because we cannot compete is not supported.
3. IN what way is the health of American manufacturing directly inverse to the rest of the economy?
Capitalism Is a Command Economy Directed by the Wall Street KremlinIt's a Team, Not a One-Man ShowOwners Aren't EarnersOinkonomics for Stuck Pigs
Those are the porcine plutocratic parasites' rules. If part-time work produces the same as full-time work used to, then it deserves the benefits of a full-time job. Automation will reduce the workday and the workers whose jobs you so sadistically think you have killed will take turns.
With the introduction of trucks, the former horse-and-buggy delivery drivers made many more deliveries and got paid more. That money circulated so that there would be buyers for the greater number of deliveries. The smug conceited Scrooges better not insist on net job losses, or they will have to run for their lives.
That is only one of the benefits of automation. Others include greater productivity, far fewer safety issues,
The idea that a factory owner would spend tons of money to automate, and then increase the workers' hourly pay too, is ridiculous.
The employees create the owner's wealth, so the idea that they would make him rich so he could afford to buy machines that put them out of work is ridiculous. We do not have to worship and sacrifice for the bosses just because it gives you a smug feeling of importance when you preach that to us.
It does not make me feel anything to discuss this issue.
But the owner pays for the buildings, equipment, materials, and pays to be compliant with all the regulations. He risks all that in order to make a profit. He only gets paid if he makes a profit.
The employees get paid for performing a task. They get paid by the hour to do work. No risk.
What the owner does with his business is his choice. If he brings in automation, and lays off workers, it is his risk.
The employees cover his risk and all his start-up expenses. Besides, risk means stupidity, as in, "That was a pretty risky thing you did." Even more besides, he's usually working with a bank loan, which means the bankers are the ones taking the risk. And most besides, the employees risk the outcome that this conceited parasite will mess up the business and lay them off.
Ok, a hypothetical for you. Nothing farfetched.
Suppose I start a business manufacturing Widgets. I put up $500,000 of my own money, and borrow another $500,000 (using my house and retirement fund as collateral). I get things rolling. I'm manufacturing Widgets and doing ok. Then you come in and ask to apply for a job. You get interviews and tests ect, and I decide to hire you. You and I basically make a deal. You agree to do X Task, and I agree to pay you X Dollars per hour worked.
My question is this. How long do you have to work at Widgets Manufacturing before you, as an employee, are partners in the business?
Its funny, you want the employees to own shares of the company. But no mention of them participating in the debt incurred to start the business. How about liability? If something gets the company sued, do the workers pay their share of the fines? If the business goes under, do the employees carry some of the debt?Capitalism Is a Command Economy Directed by the Wall Street KremlinIt's a Team, Not a One-Man ShowOwners Aren't EarnersThat is only one of the benefits of automation. Others include greater productivity, far fewer safety issues,
The idea that a factory owner would spend tons of money to automate, and then increase the workers' hourly pay too, is ridiculous.
The employees create the owner's wealth, so the idea that they would make him rich so he could afford to buy machines that put them out of work is ridiculous. We do not have to worship and sacrifice for the bosses just because it gives you a smug feeling of importance when you preach that to us.
It does not make me feel anything to discuss this issue.
But the owner pays for the buildings, equipment, materials, and pays to be compliant with all the regulations. He risks all that in order to make a profit. He only gets paid if he makes a profit.
The employees get paid for performing a task. They get paid by the hour to do work. No risk.
What the owner does with his business is his choice. If he brings in automation, and lays off workers, it is his risk.
The employees cover his risk and all his start-up expenses. Besides, risk means stupidity, as in, "That was a pretty risky thing you did." Even more besides, he's usually working with a bank loan, which means the bankers are the ones taking the risk. And most besides, the employees risk the outcome that this conceited parasite will mess up the business and lay them off.
Ok, a hypothetical for you. Nothing farfetched.
Suppose I start a business manufacturing Widgets. I put up $500,000 of my own money, and borrow another $500,000 (using my house and retirement fund as collateral). I get things rolling. I'm manufacturing Widgets and doing ok. Then you come in and ask to apply for a job. You get interviews and tests ect, and I decide to hire you. You and I basically make a deal. You agree to do X Task, and I agree to pay you X Dollars per hour worked.
My question is this. How long do you have to work at Widgets Manufacturing before you, as an employee, are partners in the business?
That employment contract is under an imbalance of power, Man Against Millionaire, so it is invalid because it is signed under duress.
My answer is this: it is only because the Rule of Law is the law of the rulers that the employee doesn't immediately become a stockholder. Equal shares from top to bottom, but different salaries voted on by all employees.
Evil Comes From Over, Just As Hubris Is Related to HyperState control folks love to talk about all the jobs that their leader created and that when some guy says he built a factory they say "you didn't build that!"....hundreds of thousands of factory jobs trump created...
imho it's a crock. The only way a job can be created is when someone decides to pay someone else to do something. If Mr. T did not go and offer to pay someone to work in a factory then he did not create a factory job.
expat_panama if you look at the link, you would see that I was being very sarcastic. I cannot recommend strongly enough that take a few minutes ... M
Scroll all the way to the right to see which trump benefits.
Scroll all the way to the bottom to get an idea of just how hypocritical and dishonest he has been to the US voter.
And note where all his factories are located. Needless to say, they're not in the US.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
The Boss Is a Childish Adult's Infallible Father FigureCapitalism Is a Command Economy Directed by the Wall Street KremlinIt's a Team, Not a One-Man ShowOwners Aren't Earners
The employees create the owner's wealth, so the idea that they would make him rich so he could afford to buy machines that put them out of work is ridiculous. We do not have to worship and sacrifice for the bosses just because it gives you a smug feeling of importance when you preach that to us.
It does not make me feel anything to discuss this issue.
But the owner pays for the buildings, equipment, materials, and pays to be compliant with all the regulations. He risks all that in order to make a profit. He only gets paid if he makes a profit.
The employees get paid for performing a task. They get paid by the hour to do work. No risk.
What the owner does with his business is his choice. If he brings in automation, and lays off workers, it is his risk.
The employees cover his risk and all his start-up expenses. Besides, risk means stupidity, as in, "That was a pretty risky thing you did." Even more besides, he's usually working with a bank loan, which means the bankers are the ones taking the risk. And most besides, the employees risk the outcome that this conceited parasite will mess up the business and lay them off.
Ok, a hypothetical for you. Nothing farfetched.
Suppose I start a business manufacturing Widgets. I put up $500,000 of my own money, and borrow another $500,000 (using my house and retirement fund as collateral). I get things rolling. I'm manufacturing Widgets and doing ok. Then you come in and ask to apply for a job. You get interviews and tests ect, and I decide to hire you. You and I basically make a deal. You agree to do X Task, and I agree to pay you X Dollars per hour worked.
My question is this. How long do you have to work at Widgets Manufacturing before you, as an employee, are partners in the business?
That employment contract is under an imbalance of power, Man Against Millionaire, so it is invalid because it is signed under duress.
My answer is this: it is only because the Rule of Law is the law of the rulers that the employee doesn't immediately become a stockholder. Equal shares from top to bottom, but different salaries voted on by all employees.
Its funny, you want the employees to own shares of the company. But no mention of them participating in the debt incurred to start the business. How about liability? If something gets the company sued, do the workers pay their share of the fines? ?
greed of consumers is 100% responsible.Trump blames outsourcing on taxes and regulations, not on greed for cheap labor. g.
