my personal observations for $15 an hour minimum

[danielpalos]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

UBI makes more sense than unemployment insurance, if you end all other forms of welfare (including corporate welfare).

I agree to disagree. Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement.

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.[

 

[Utilitarian]

UBI makes more sense than unemployment insurance, if you end all other forms of welfare (including corporate welfare).

I agree to disagree. Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement.

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.[

Well, my argument is that unemployment insurance should be a voluntary thing that employers can opt into or out of. UBI would render it irrelevant.

 

[HenryBHough]

..well, for a long time, many times when I go to the fast food place, they get a SIMPLE order wrong!!!!!
..I just went today and the clerk was an IDIOT!!!
--I waited a long time before they responded to me--and there were no other customers
--I said I wanted 2 burgers.....and then no answer...then he asked if I wanted something else-so I told him fries and a shake
--THEN he said ''just a minute'''
THEN he asked for the coupon code--and
--THEN he asked AGAIN what were extras I ordered
etc
--a complete IDIOT ..and they want the employers to be forced to pay more to IDIOTS????!!!! to do a SHITTY job!!!????

Your experience was not unusual. Indeed, the norm I have observed for over a decade. Would today's customers reach with surprise to an instance of good service? My bet is said customer would have no idea how to respond but, being a 2021 customer, probably would ignore it or reply with some sort of verbal abuse.

But $15/hour? Probably necessary now that The American Dollar is worth about 10 sheets of splinter-free, unwaxed toilet paper.

 

[harmonica]

..well, for a long time, many times when I go to the fast food place, they get a SIMPLE order wrong!!!!!
..I just went today and the clerk was an IDIOT!!!
--I waited a long time before they responded to me--and there were no other customers
--I said I wanted 2 burgers.....and then no answer...then he asked if I wanted something else-so I told him fries and a shake
--THEN he said ''just a minute'''
THEN he asked for the coupon code--and
--THEN he asked AGAIN what were extras I ordered
etc
--a complete IDIOT ..and they want the employers to be forced to pay more to IDIOTS????!!!! to do a SHITTY job!!!????

Your experience was not unusual. Indeed, the norm I have observed for over a decade. Would today's customers reach with surprise to an instance of good service? My bet is said customer would have no idea how to respond but, being a 2021 customer, probably would ignore it or reply with some sort of verbal abuse.

But $15/hour? Probably necessary now that The American Dollar is worth about 10 sheets of splinter-free, unwaxed toilet paper.

....most companies WANT you to critique your experience --that's why they send out so many email reviews to customers

 

[HenryBHough]

....most companies WANT you to critique your experience --that's why they send out so many email reviews to customers

I've always believed that solicitations (as on register receipts) to review your experienced have but one intent:

To fatten the email SPAM distrtibution list.

For that reason I maintain several "spam magnet" email accounts and use them when tempted to "review". One I set up recently was used purposely to submit only one review to a national online vender. Within a few days it was getting 20+ spam messages per day and all of them from different originating addresses. As soon as it hits 50/day I'll abandon it entirely.

 

[harmonica]

....most companies WANT you to critique your experience --that's why they send out so many email reviews to customers

I've always believed that solicitations (as on register receipts) to review your experienced have but one intent:

To fatten the email SPAM distrtibution list.

For that reason I maintain several "spam magnet" email accounts and use them when tempted to "review". One I set up recently was used purposely to submit only one review to a national online vender. Within a few days it was getting 20+ spam messages per day and all of them from different originating addresses. As soon as it hits 50/day I'll abandon it entirely.

..they want to improve their service

 

[danielpalos]

UBI makes more sense than unemployment insurance, if you end all other forms of welfare (including corporate welfare).

I agree to disagree. Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement.

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.[

Well, my argument is that unemployment insurance should be a voluntary thing that employers can opt into or out of. UBI would render it irrelevant.

In a new updated version of unemployment compensation, it would only be a State responsibility to administer. Funding for the program would come from general taxes not direct taxes.

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

Don't know where you're from but I'm from "At Will For Less" Florida and getting unemployment compensation, if you can navigate the process, is next to impossible.

So, try this time to actually respond to the post.

Protecting barbarism as we have in Florida is not part of a solution.

I am advocating for equal protection of the law; it is an entitlement.

No, you're not.
That is a lie.
You're lobbying for removal of equal protections.

How did you reach that conclusion? Are you on the Right Wing?

Anyone supporting "right to work" for less laws is supporting the loss of worker protections.

That is you.

 

[danielpalos]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

Don't know where you're from but I'm from "At Will For Less" Florida and getting unemployment compensation, if you can navigate the process, is next to impossible.

So, try this time to actually respond to the post.

Protecting barbarism as we have in Florida is not part of a solution.

I am advocating for equal protection of the law; it is an entitlement.

No, you're not.
That is a lie.
You're lobbying for removal of equal protections.

How did you reach that conclusion? Are you on the Right Wing?

Anyone supporting "right to work" for less laws is supporting the loss of worker protections.

That is you.

I support an actual, Right to Work in alleged right to work States.

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Lose 2 world wars
Suffer decades of privation
Have the country divided for 50 years...

Maybe there's a better way?

Well, Germany had a pretty solid work culture before even WW1. Also, they had socialized healthcare before that.

The real change that needs to happen here is in our education system. We push academics too much and trades too little. We have a massive shortage of many blue collar trades.

Sorry but, again, I disagree on this.
Yes, I'm in favor of more trade schools and more testing to see whether kids can accelerate academically or which trades might suit them.
BUT
If the owner are going to squeeze every nickel till the Buffalo shits and use their influence brought to them by unlimited secret campaign contributions then it will move the needle not at bit.

You cannot fix one side of a see-saw.

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

Agreed, which is why I also support more privatization of education. If more areas had charter schools or private schools to pick from, it would greatly improve overall results.

NO.
Privatization is nothing more than reversing Brown v BoE.
Schools will be tiered by price and "other factors" and the only PoC you will see in the best schools will be athletes.

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

Co-op style businesses work well for certain industries, but they're only feasible when there isn't a wide variety of different skill sets involved. It's why you'll see them with grocery stores, but not, say, pharmaceutical companies.

Germany's approach is broader in its applicability, because it allows for democratic decision making in every business while still being flexible in management.

Again, what you're describing is a relationship wherein both the union and management realize their shared goals.
This cooperative arrangement cannot exist in this country until management stops thinking every dime belongs in their pockets.
A thing to remember
Without owners there is no business.
Without workers there is no business.
The business works best when both sides realize their shared goals.
Too much power in either direction will destroy the business.

I don't know much about the German labor market.
But
I do know that compared to the US the living standards, health care, elder care, and other social programs far exceed those in the US and I'm willing to bet that real EPS for German shareholders is lower than that for American shareholders.

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

 

[Likkmee]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

I want the freedumb to use Amazon Prime if my house catches fire. Guess who will arrive first ? Cancel my property tax please

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

Don't know where you're from but I'm from "At Will For Less" Florida and getting unemployment compensation, if you can navigate the process, is next to impossible.

So, try this time to actually respond to the post.

Protecting barbarism as we have in Florida is not part of a solution.

Generally speaking, the states that are most unionized are stagnating economically. Industry tends to move to states that are at-will. So, if Florida ceased being at-will, it would become poorer than it already is due to losing industries.

The states that manage to still grow despite unionization usually have a lot of capital to begin with. New York has always been one of the wealthier states in the country, so it can afford to unionize, so to speak. California is similar. You'll notice the same didn't work out for Michigan, Ohio, or Illinois.

Illinois, in particular, is an interesting case, because Chicago has plenty of money, but the state overall is losing population. People are moving to neighboring states, like Indiana. Chicago has enough capital to survive for now, but if you're working class, it's not a good place to be. It's much easier to start a business in Indiana, for example.

Michigan? Ohio? Care to throw in any other auto production states from the 70?
Management's failure to recognize the need for better quality and better economy opened the doors to Japan and Germany for high quality low cost cars. The US auto industry failed to respond (my god they were still putting 400cc+ engines in passenger cars) and when they did we ended up with cars like the Monza and, as a result, lost more than 50% of their business from 1975 to 1995.

Meanwhile management refused to shutdown and retool because they were busy squeezing that last turd out of the Buffalo.
BTW the same happened in western PA when the steel industry faded. Inefficient processes and high labor costs combined with management failure to address changes in the market destroyed the steel industry.

Note the common thread. Management failures. The union, faced with management bent on squeezing every nickel, fights on those terms. But the unions don't make decisions on retooling, locations, or the other factors that kill a business.

I'm reminded of a scene from Family guy.



Management greed.

 

[Utilitarian]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Lose 2 world wars
Suffer decades of privation
Have the country divided for 50 years...

Maybe there's a better way?

Well, Germany had a pretty solid work culture before even WW1. Also, they had socialized healthcare before that.

The real change that needs to happen here is in our education system. We push academics too much and trades too little. We have a massive shortage of many blue collar trades.

Sorry but, again, I disagree on this.
Yes, I'm in favor of more trade schools and more testing to see whether kids can accelerate academically or which trades might suit them.
BUT
If the owner are going to squeeze every nickel till the Buffalo shits and use their influence brought to them by unlimited secret campaign contributions then it will move the needle not at bit.

You cannot fix one side of a see-saw.

Germany has corporate lobbyism just like we do but it doesn't seem to prevent them from having a good labor environment.

That being said, they do also have public funding for political parties that matches their "self-generated revenue."

Party finance in Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Utilitarian]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

Agreed, which is why I also support more privatization of education. If more areas had charter schools or private schools to pick from, it would greatly improve overall results.

NO.
Privatization is nothing more than reversing Brown v BoE.
Schools will be tiered by price and "other factors" and the only PoC you will see in the best schools will be athletes.

That's not how it has worked in many areas with private competition and voucher programs. When DC had a voucher program, the private schools primarily served black students.

If I'm not mistaken, Houston still has a voucher system in place, and they primarily serve poor students, many of whom are black as well.

 

[Utilitarian]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

Co-op style businesses work well for certain industries, but they're only feasible when there isn't a wide variety of different skill sets involved. It's why you'll see them with grocery stores, but not, say, pharmaceutical companies.

Germany's approach is broader in its applicability, because it allows for democratic decision making in every business while still being flexible in management.

Again, what you're describing is a relationship wherein both the union and management realize their shared goals.
This cooperative arrangement cannot exist in this country until management stops thinking every dime belongs in their pockets.
A thing to remember
Without owners there is no business.
Without workers there is no business.
The business works best when both sides realize their shared goals.
Too much power in either direction will destroy the business.

I don't know much about the German labor market.
But
I do know that compared to the US the living standards, health care, elder care, and other social programs far exceed those in the US and I'm willing to bet that real EPS for German shareholders is lower than that for American shareholders.

I don't know as much about the stock side of business in Germany, but the reason why the labor environment is better there is specifically because labor is better educated and more skilled in Germany. In short, that division of academic and trade talent among students allows children to specialize before they become adults. That gives them a head start over the specialization that we do here. It also makes sure that students aren't burdened with massive debts from college.

 

[Utilitarian]

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

Cuba's fate can't be blamed on us. Yes, we have sanctioned them several times and have refused to trade with them for decades, but most of the world still trades with them. They have no excuse for their failures but their own abusive governance.

Yes, Venezuela has been sanctioned by us, but they've also had an authoritarian government ever since Chavez took power. Maduro was even worse.

The biggest problems with Venezuela were that they didn't diversify their economy enough, and they scared off foreign investment when they started seizing private industries. After they started doing this to American owned businesses, we sanctioned them.

Socialism is an economic system where the government runs all production/industry. That is not the same as using the government to run certain public amenities. That is called socialization. They are similar but different in extent.

And you'll notice that even much of socialization still involves private industry. The government doesn't build roads. It hires contractors to build them. The military is run by the government, but a large portion of military activity involves contracted security. The government doesn't build military equipment and weapons, but it hires private companies to build them. The only hospitals you could describe as socialist in this country are the VA ones. They aren't exactly the highest quality ones either.

Bailing out the auto industry was actually worse than socialism. It was corporatism, because government didn't nationalize the auto industry and instead just threw public money at them, just like how we did with big banks. So, it makes both Bush and Obama corporatists, but that's the majority of both parties in general.

I do agree with keeping us out of most foreign affairs and shrinking the military, however.

 

[Utilitarian]

Michigan? Ohio? Care to throw in any other auto production states from the 70?
Management's failure to recognize the need for better quality and better economy opened the doors to Japan and Germany for high quality low cost cars. The US auto industry failed to respond (my god they were still putting 400cc+ engines in passenger cars) and when they did we ended up with cars like the Monza and, as a result, lost more than 50% of their business from 1975 to 1995.

Meanwhile management refused to shutdown and retool because they were busy squeezing that last turd out of the Buffalo.
BTW the same happened in western PA when the steel industry faded. Inefficient processes and high labor costs combined with management failure to address changes in the market destroyed the steel industry.

Note the common thread. Management failures. The union, faced with management bent on squeezing every nickel, fights on those terms. But the unions don't make decisions on retooling, locations, or the other factors that kill a business.

I'm reminded of a scene from Family guy.



Management greed.

And said management failures wouldn't persist as much if we didn't bail them out. When American automakers first failed to adapt to the market, we bailed them out. At this point, we've bailed them out multiple times over multiple decades.

If we had never bailed them out to begin with, these companies would have either been replaced by others or would have reorganized themselves to fit market needs. They still don't adapt very well precisely because we keep bailing them out. The same has happened with Wall Street. They keep taking massive risks, because they know the government has their back.

When you let industries rise and fall due to their own mistakes, you end up with better companies surviving the mess. That being said, government does sometimes have to intervene when monopolies or oligopolies develop.