$65/hour to cut grass is example of why jobs go off-shore...

[squeeze berry]

I have 3/4 of an acre of which maybe half is grass. They come once a week, two guys. One on the big mower the other with the weed whacker and blower.

They take about half an hour and charge me $45.

So I'm paying $90 an hour to get my grass cut, and be more than happy to pay that $65.

do it yourself or quit bitching

 

[Jarlaxle]

Best means to solve this issue..... Tell companies they need to be American (entire company operation inside the US) or foreign (not allowed to do business in the US). They can make their choice and live with it.

...says the raging hypocrite driving his Mexican-built car!

 

[nitroz]

you got to pay for services.

Last time I checked, Commercial equipment is really expensive and you have to do upkeep and refuel it, etc. You have to have the right tools for the job. Transportation is also added to the cost.


You get what you paid for, and costs are going up.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I have 3/4 of an acre of which maybe half is grass. They come once a week, two guys. One on the big mower the other with the weed whacker and blower.

They take about half an hour and charge me $45.

So I'm paying $90 an hour to get my grass cut, and be more than happy to pay that $65.

No...you're paying $45/hour per worker!

 

[percysunshine]

The thing that matters is that the people who are consuming are consuming everything that is being produced. When consumption is less production, production is reduced.

Wages need to be whatever it needs to be so that all that gets produced can be consumed.

yes, but the corporate shills like the idea of going back to the robber baron class where only the top 1% can prosper and everyone else becomes cheap labor for them.

So why is it fair that unions can monopolize labor markets, but the Sherman Act and anti-trust law prohibits corporations from monopolizing capital and retail/consumer markets?

Fair is fair. Monopolies are counter to the public interest.

 

[Political Junky]

Deport illegals and that's what you will be paying (if you're lucky) to have an American cut your grass.

omg What utter BULLSHIT.. Not once has an illegal taken care of my yard.. NOT ONCE.. nor my father's.. You fucking liberals and your lies are pathetic.

So?

Just because you don't, doesn't mean that a good number of people do use illegals to cut their grass.

Get out of the bubble once in a while and look around.

 

[itfitzme]

I have 3/4 of an acre of which maybe half is grass. They come once a week, two guys. One on the big mower the other with the weed whacker and blower.

They take about half an hour and charge me $45.

So I'm paying $90 an hour to get my grass cut, and be more than happy to pay that $65.

Whether it is one guy spending an hour, two guys spending half an hour, or four guys spending 15 minutes, you have purchased one man hour of manual labor for $45. Plus, they made the capital investment to purchase the equipment and are paying the operating cost of the gasoline.

If you contracted with the UAW to mow your 3/4 acre, it would cost you 50% more, and you would provide the mower, the blower, and the gas.

.

Ah, I see the problem. You have some value in mind for the labor than what the free market actually sets it at.

The other thing is that you're thinking that automobiles would cost less if wages were less.

Those are two pretty big assumptions.

Product prices are a function of what the market will pay given the quantity supplied, as much as anything.

Wages are a function of what can be paid, as much as anything.

If wages were lower, profits would be higher.

If prices of autos were lower, the price of other goods would be higher.

A price in a market is dependent on far more than simply cost of labor and materials. It is also dependent on what everything else costs. It is depedent on what demand is willing and able to pay. It is dependent on what production must charge and what it can charge. It is dependent on what suppliers of materials can accept and what production is willing to pay. It is dependent upon what labor can accept and what production can pay. It is dependent in the supply of materials and labor. It depends on other marketa are willing to pay for those materials and labor. It is why they are called the equilibrium price and quantity, because it is where all the market forces reach equilibriim.

 

[boilermaker55]

I wish you could see the irony in this post but it seems that escapes you.
Unless I am getting the wrong message from it.

The experts tell us there are at least 3 primary reasons manufacturing jobs go offshore and labor costs is one of them.
And the following is an example of labor unions killing the golden goose !
Take grass cutting.
As defined by the current United Auto Worker contract negotiated with the "Big Five" (GM, Ford, Chrysler, and top parts makers Delphi and Visteon),
an auto "production worker" is a job description that covers anything from mowing grass to cleaning the toilets.
In the real world, these jobs would be outsourced to $8 an hour, no-benefit wage earners, but on Planet Big Five, these jobs get the same wages
as any auto line-worker: an average $26 an hour ($60,000 a year) plus benefits that bring the company's total cost per worker to a staggering $65 an hour."[/I]
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070924073107AAuGk8O


There is a real three-fold reason to offshore production:
Lower labor rates,
lower bill of material costs and an
indefinite deferral of corporate income taxes.
One other significant reason for offshoring is the assistance provided by the Asian countries to acquire and build factories at very low costs, reduced environmental regulations, health and safety regulations and very business friendly perks for doing business in Asia.

US corporations save over $100 billion a year in direct labor costs from offshoring production (on 2.4 million jobs transferred from the USA.) On a worldwide basis, corporations have accumulated over $20 trillion in deferred tax benefits as well. It’s good business to do what these corporations have done.

PRIMARY REASONS TO OFFSHORE PRODUCTION

 

[itfitzme]

The thing that matters is that the people who are consuming are consuming everything that is being produced. When consumption is less production, production is reduced.

Wages need to be whatever it needs to be so that all that gets produced can be consumed.

yes, but the corporate shills like the idea of going back to the robber baron class where only the top 1% can prosper and everyone else becomes cheap labor for them.

So why is it fair that unions can monopolize labor markets, but the Sherman Act and anti-trust law prohibits corporations from monopolizing capital and retail/consumer markets?

Fair is fair. Monopolies are counter to the public interest.

Because monopolies were causing problems for the free market while unions were not. Economics doesn't have a concept of "fair". The labor market is not the goods market any more than businesses are households.

 

[itfitzme]

I wish you could see the irony in this post but it seems that escapes you.
Unless I am getting the wrong message from it.

The experts tell us there are at least 3 primary reasons manufacturing jobs go offshore and labor costs is one of them.
And the following is an example of labor unions killing the golden goose !
Take grass cutting.
As defined by the current United Auto Worker contract negotiated with the "Big Five" (GM, Ford, Chrysler, and top parts makers Delphi and Visteon),
an auto "production worker" is a job description that covers anything from mowing grass to cleaning the toilets.
In the real world, these jobs would be outsourced to $8 an hour, no-benefit wage earners, but on Planet Big Five, these jobs get the same wages
as any auto line-worker: an average $26 an hour ($60,000 a year) plus benefits that bring the company's total cost per worker to a staggering $65 an hour."[/I]
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070924073107AAuGk8O


There is a real three-fold reason to offshore production:
Lower labor rates,
lower bill of material costs and an
indefinite deferral of corporate income taxes.
One other significant reason for offshoring is the assistance provided by the Asian countries to acquire and build factories at very low costs, reduced environmental regulations, health and safety regulations and very business friendly perks for doing business in Asia.

US corporations save over $100 billion a year in direct labor costs from offshoring production (on 2.4 million jobs transferred from the USA.) On a worldwide basis, corporations have accumulated over $20 trillion in deferred tax benefits as well. It’s good business to do what these corporations have done.

PRIMARY REASONS TO OFFSHORE PRODUCTION

I'm trying to figure out what this "real world" is that is being refered to. I haven't actually been to a union headquarter or seen the inside of an auto manufacturing plant (except on TV and for all I know that is CGI). Still, I'm pretty sure that they are real.

 

[Mr Natural]

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

 

[kiwiman127]

The experts tell us there are at least 3 primary reasons manufacturing jobs go offshore and labor costs is one of them.
And the following is an example of labor unions killing the golden goose !
Take grass cutting.
As defined by the current United Auto Worker contract negotiated with the "Big Five" (GM, Ford, Chrysler, and top parts makers Delphi and Visteon),
an auto "production worker" is a job description that covers anything from mowing grass to cleaning the toilets.
In the real world, these jobs would be outsourced to $8 an hour, no-benefit wage earners, but on Planet Big Five, these jobs get the same wages
as any auto line-worker: an average $26 an hour ($60,000 a year) plus benefits that bring the company's total cost per worker to a staggering $65 an hour."[/I]
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070924073107AAuGk8O


There is a real three-fold reason to offshore production:
Lower labor rates,
lower bill of material costs and an
indefinite deferral of corporate income taxes.
One other significant reason for offshoring is the assistance provided by the Asian countries to acquire and build factories at very low costs, reduced environmental regulations, health and safety regulations and very business friendly perks for doing business in Asia.

US corporations save over $100 billion a year in direct labor costs from offshoring production (on 2.4 million jobs transferred from the USA.) On a worldwide basis, corporations have accumulated over $20 trillion in deferred tax benefits as well. It’s good business to do what these corporations have done.

PRIMARY REASONS TO OFFSHORE PRODUCTION

$65 to mow a yard is ridiculous but I doubt that most people who mow yards for a living charge much, much less than that.
The rest of your rant is damn sad.
You favor and praise corporations for shipping jobs offshore. Why do you hate America? Why do you hate the working poor and working middle class?
Ever wonder why the last recession too so long to recover from? Quite a few of CEO's complained that the consumer class wasn't spending and that was extending the recession recovery period. Now suck in the fact that wages for the working class have been flat for over three decades. Suck in the fact that the working class is the largest segment by far of the consumer class. Now, think about the fact that over 70% of the US economy is consumer driven.
So, low wages/flat wages drag down the US economy. That isn't good for your own country. But go ahead and cheer lead the further demise of the US economy and it's economic stability.
There's a huge reason why the US middle class is getting weaker and weaker. There is a good reason why the "American Dream" is becoming just that,,a dream.
While in the rest of the world, the middle class is getting stronger, the US middle class gets weaker. Canada just replaced the US has having the strongest middle class. Most other developed nation's middle class have seen their incomes grow at a much faster rate than the US. Even China has a growing and stronger middle class.
Don't tell me that you love America, you obviously don't. You certainly appear to be cheering on the demise of the massive middle class and the working poor in favor a tiny portion of the US population getting wealthier because of crappy wages. Let them eat cake (crumbs), that's your pitiful M.O.
You won't be happy until the US turns into a Third World country. That's just great news for future generations, your future generations too.

 

[percysunshine]

I have 3/4 of an acre of which maybe half is grass. They come once a week, two guys. One on the big mower the other with the weed whacker and blower.

They take about half an hour and charge me $45.

So I'm paying $90 an hour to get my grass cut, and be more than happy to pay that $65.

Whether it is one guy spending an hour, two guys spending half an hour, or four guys spending 15 minutes, you have purchased one man hour of manual labor for $45. Plus, they made the capital investment to purchase the equipment and are paying the operating cost of the gasoline.

If you contracted with the UAW to mow your 3/4 acre, it would cost you 50% more, and you would provide the mower, the blower, and the gas.

.

Ah, I see the problem. You have some value in mind for the labor than what the free market actually sets it at.

The other thing is that you're thinking that automobiles would cost less if wages were less.

Those are two pretty big assumptions.

Product prices are a function of what the market will pay given the quantity supplied, as much as anything.

Wages are a function of what can be paid, as much as anything.

If wages were lower, profits would be higher.

If prices of autos were lower, the price of other goods would be higher.

A price in a market is dependent on far more than simply cost of labor and materials. It is also dependent on what everything else costs. It is depedent on what demand is willing and able to pay. It is dependent on what production must charge and what it can charge. It is dependent on what suppliers of materials can accept and what production is willing to pay. It is dependent upon what labor can accept and what production can pay. It is dependent in the supply of materials and labor. It depends on other marketa are willing to pay for those materials and labor. It is why they are called the equilibrium price and quantity, because it is where all the market forces reach equilibriim.

"Ah, I see the problem. You have some value in mind for the labor than what the free market actually sets it at."

Not really, Mr. Clean was dealing in a free market, he just didn't get the math right.


"The other thing is that you're thinking that automobiles would cost less if wages were less."

Mental telepathy pays about $100,000/hr. Good luck with that one.


"Those are two pretty big assumptions."

Assumptions I never made. Now you are constructing a straw man.


"Product prices are a function of what the market will pay given the quantity supplied, as much as anything....Wages are a function of what can be paid, as much as anything."

Product prices are a function of many things. Quantity of supply and needs of demand as well as quality and timely availability.


"If wages were lower, profits would be higher."

Try to get Mr. Cleans lawn crew to de-install anti-virus software on your computer and get back to me.


"A price in a market is dependent on far more than simply cost of labor and materials...."

Obviously. But a monopoly arrangement on any of those factors never lasts long.

.

 

[Manonthestreet]

or maybe its an example of jobs that cant be outsourced have some leverage others dont.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The op doesn't understand basic economics. The rich corporations can easily afford to give their workers enough to put a meal on the table and a light over their heads.Who the fuck is arguing for 65/hour to mow grass? That would be stupid as the entire supply chain would collapse. You see, economic is a balancing game that is far above your pay grade.

It isn't good to allow all the wealth to go to the top 1%! A healthy economy has the largest middle class possible that can supply the demand.

You're a heartless!

 

[ScienceRocks]

or maybe its an example of jobs that cant be outsourced have some leverage others dont.

yeah, right to a place where they can pay a bunch of ******* .50 cents/hour. This is what you support.

 

[Manonthestreet]

or maybe its an example of jobs that cant be outsourced have some leverage others dont.

yeah, right to a place where they can pay a bunch of ******* .50 cents/hour. This is what you support.[/QUOTE

Really...you got all that out of one sentence........fine ASSumption is all ya got

 

[healthmyths]

Lower wages won't save the jobs. They're putting self-service checkouts in retail stores where the human cashiers are already making low wages.

If the damned Democrats would stop doing everything they can to jack up the price of everything I think lower wages would create jobs.

But then again, everyone that works at McDonalds has 12 kids to feed.

lower wages for the bottom tier means lower wages for the middle class as well...when wages are higher for the lower tier, wages are higher for the middle class as well, they inch up, so there is a distinct separation....

as far as inflation....bet ya more inflation, or in the least, more HARM, has come from the handful in the highest tier workers moving from 70 times the average worker salary to 250-400 times the average worker, has hurt inflation or us as a Nation, more than the lowest tier getting a raise and the middle class inching up too.

AGAIN YOU MiSSED THE POINT!
What will happen to the low skill,entry level jobs that were worth paying $7.25/hour to the less then 1 million people age 16 to 19 that worked at them?
They will be replaced!
SO now we have 1 million more unemployed. But more importantly these low skill entry level were also beginning training on fundamentals of working.
These workers ONLY requirements were be on time and be at work every day! That's all they had to do!
But because idiots don't look at the minimum wage as being just that... you and other idiots are going to cost jobs because this time the
increase is nearly 30% and the only way of cost effectively handling that is replace these 16 to 19 minimum wage janitors,bus boys etc. with customer self
service! It is happening and the the supposedly benefit to the less then 3.3 million that make minimum wage will be for naught as they will be replaced!

That's the point! The minimum was a cost point that raised 30% means too much increase to be borne at once.
So let go the 16 to 19 year old replace with customer service!

 

[boilermaker55]

My first intuition was right. You don't see the irony in your statement.
Typical.

If the damned Democrats would stop doing everything they can to jack up the price of everything I think lower wages would create jobs.

But then again, everyone that works at McDonalds has 12 kids to feed.

lower wages for the bottom tier means lower wages for the middle class as well...when wages are higher for the lower tier, wages are higher for the middle class as well, they inch up, so there is a distinct separation....

as far as inflation....bet ya more inflation, or in the least, more HARM, has come from the handful in the highest tier workers moving from 70 times the average worker salary to 250-400 times the average worker, has hurt inflation or us as a Nation, more than the lowest tier getting a raise and the middle class inching up too.

AGAIN YOU MiSSED THE POINT!
What will happen to the low skill,entry level jobs that were worth paying $7.25/hour to the less then 1 million people age 16 to 19 that worked at them?
They will be replaced!
SO now we have 1 million more unemployed. But more importantly these low skill entry level were also beginning training on fundamentals of working.
These workers ONLY requirements were be on time and be at work every day! That's all they had to do!
But because idiots don't look at the minimum wage as being just that... you and other idiots are going to cost jobs because this time the
increase is nearly 30% and the only way of cost effectively handling that is replace these 16 to 19 minimum wage janitors,bus boys etc. with customer self
service! It is happening and the the supposedly benefit to the less then 3.3 million that make minimum wage will be for naught as they will be replaced!

That's the point! The minimum was a cost point that raised 30% means too much increase to be borne at once.
So let go the 16 to 19 year old replace with customer service!

 

[rightwinger]

Can you tell us how many $65 an hour grass cutters are employed by GM?