flacaltenn
Diamond Member
The cost of labor isn't something the federal government has any control over, especially in foreign countries, so why is it even mentioned in this debate?
That right. Assholes like you think it is all taxes as the motivator for companies moving out of country.
When in fact it is the HUUUGE reduction in labor cost that make the move so.profitable.
So asshole, which does a large corporation pay more of; taxes or labor.
Simple question asshole. See if you can answer it honestly.
No one denied that. You can't point to a single post on here by anyone on the right which says "Taxes are the only reason companies move". You just made that up.
Is that how we debate now? Make up what the other person didn't say, and call them an asshole for what they didn't say? Because I can make tons of crap you didn't say, and spit insults at you for it. Just let me know.
Read what he wrote.... "The cost of labor isn't something the federal government has any control over, especially in foreign countries". He never said it wasn't a factor in companies moving out of the country. He said it's not a factor that can be controlled, so why talk about it?
Especially in other countries. People scream about China all the time, and yet, what exactly do you think the government should do? Ask China to put in place a $15/hr minimum wage? Not going to happen. Simply not going to happen.
Now one think I disagree with bripat9643 on, is that there is something we can do about the cost of labor, but it's everything that you people on the left will hate, and refuse to accept, which is why those jobs are NEVER coming back.
Ban Unions. Unions drive up costs. Always have, always will.
Eliminate the minimum wage. Let the employer and employee determine the price.
Eliminate employer side taxes. We can cut labor costs in the US by 7.5% instantly by repealing the FICA tax.
Eliminate unemployment compensation.
Eliminate health care mandates.
You do those things, and America will create jobs by the millions, and in months.
But of course the left refuses to accept this, and like Atlas Shrugged, "I demand you make OUR plan work"... can't. You can't tax, mandate, and regulate companies into creating jobs. Which is exactly what we've been doing, and exactly why companies are leaving.
Your fault. Not ours.
Generally --- you got it.. And we agree a whole lot. But I've pondered the "union" issue a while and come to a different conclusion.. The unions are irrelevant today because their vision of "a job" is prehistoric. They spend all their time LIMITING a job definition and they dont GiveaF about CAREER or CONTRIBUTION to the overall effort. I think unions have one play left. And that is to become more aware of CAREER and FLEXIBLE job descriptions.
I also the Min Wage ought to apply ONLY to retirees and students. You should either be out of the main workforce by age or TRAINING for a career.. Let the employers subsidize 2 yr Community college as a requirement to pay min wage and allow min wage to include subsidies for career training.
Well we had on this exact forum, a guy who claimed to be part of the Union which destroyed hostess, and he at least seemed knowledgeable enough to comment.
They openly voted to destroy the company. He even said as much, which jives with what we know happened.
Now regardless of reason, how does that look to investors?
View attachment 66874
The difference in labor costs between the Unionized companies, verses non-union companies is huge. Which is exactly why GM and Chrysler went bust, while Honda Toyota, and Nissan did not.
The only reason Ford didn't, is because the Unions made concession in 2006, with Ford. They agreed to cut Union wages, which allowed Ford to sneak past the 2009 crash, without bankruptcy.
I think Unions are still a factor, and one that causes lots of jobs to leave the country.
Let employers subsidize college? Are you crazy? So I'm the employer. I hire on some teenager. He goes to college on my dime, and then quits. Either he fails out, or he gets a degree and disappears.
Either way, the cost of funding college, will exceed the value that he brings into my company. Resulting on me losing money on every teenager I hire.
What am I going to do? Never hire a teenager again. Terrible idea.
I have no problem with Unions negotiating for and getting better wages than average if
1) The membership is voluntary by all reasonable standards.
2) The unions represent the best interests of the employees' CAREERS and not just their current job,.
3) The recognize that 21st labor MUST become flexible and multi-skilled and that folks will hired to perform a MYRIAD of tasks in the workplace setting. No more demands for a totally limited job description.
What I just described is more like a professional org than the archaic concept of a union. And that's what 21st labor is gonna resemble. When I worked at Kennedy Space Center, my office mate with 25 years experience was ON FOOD STAMPS.. This happened because of NASA's "lowest bidder" concepts (and the fact that he had 5 kids ). If you wanted to KEEP you job, you would sign on with WHOEVER low-balled bid the contract and won that year. That experience stung me so badly -- that I worked for the next 5 years with IEEE and a consort of other prof orgs to END that practice. Proving that -- government ITSELF is not immune from driving wages to a minimum -- even for highly skilled and critical jobs. That's why I HOPE that unions will shape up and recognize how irrelevant they are.. To prevent that bottom feeding from happening.
The concept of MANDATED min wage is interesting to me as a free market type. My feeling is that if you HAVE a min wage at all -- it should NOT be nationalized to one size fits all. AND the objective should NEVER BE to make people "comfortable" in underperforming, endangered, dead end jobs.
So if the object is to keep min wage labor a brief TRANSIENT part of anyones' work history, you have to formulate it to incentivize career mobility and skill flexibility. The idea of placing a requirement on employers to subsidize any type of legitimate career training is ENTIRELY workable. Instead of setting a HARD min wage, you set a wage limit so that if you pay UNDER that wage -- the employees MUST be students in training and you need to SUBSIDIZE their training and education up to the "min wage" plus a bit. What's YOUR benefit? They are gonna NATURALLY max out of "min wage" in a short time. And most LIKELY -- you will still have them as employees.. IN FACT, it's almost inevitable that folks who are pushing their skills and education are gonna be your better workers. Also -- you are supporting the local open market education community.
Watch the remedial education, vocational training, and associate degree market head straight upwards. Employers get folks who can be tutored to fill in gaps in their skills. Whether it be GED tutoring, or retail skills, or landscaping knowledge or whatever direction they are headed.
Last edited: