Washing machines/dryers prices up 17% under Trump (thank you, tariffs)

[Brain357]

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

And the workers, and the customers, and the community and the nation as a whole.

We are much stronger as a whole with a strong middle class. It has been eroded by too much of this poor management.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fire them?

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

Why? The company gets what they want, the manager gets what he or she wants. If the managers decisions were counterproductive, then that manager has to answer for the results of their actions.

 

[Brain357]

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

Why? The company gets what they want, the manager gets what he or she wants. If the managers decisions were counterproductive, then that manager has to answer for the results of their actions.

Even ceos don't answer for their actions. As long as the company keep going, nobody cares.

 

[Correll]

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

And the workers, and the customers, and the community and the nation as a whole.

We are much stronger as a whole with a strong middle class. It has been eroded by too much of this poor management.

Along with other factors. But yes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

Why? The company gets what they want, the manager gets what he or she wants. If the managers decisions were counterproductive, then that manager has to answer for the results of their actions.

Even ceos don't answer for their actions. As long as the company keep going, nobody cares.

You get paid to do X job. If you do X job, then correct, nobody cares.

 

[Brain357]

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

Why? The company gets what they want, the manager gets what he or she wants. If the managers decisions were counterproductive, then that manager has to answer for the results of their actions.

Even ceos don't answer for their actions. As long as the company keep going, nobody cares.

You get paid to do X job. If you do X job, then correct, nobody cares.

And our economy is seeing the effects of that. Slow growth, stagnant wages, low labor force participation....

 

[Indeependent]

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Isn't that kind of what they go hired to do--save their company money?

It sure hasn't been good for the country. It's very short term. The companies with the best people do well over the long term. Upper management is just worried about themselves and now.

We have quite a few mega corporations that don't run their businesses well; it's just that they out advertise their smaller competitors.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

Why? The company gets what they want, the manager gets what he or she wants. If the managers decisions were counterproductive, then that manager has to answer for the results of their actions.

Even ceos don't answer for their actions. As long as the company keep going, nobody cares.

You get paid to do X job. If you do X job, then correct, nobody cares.

And our economy is seeing the effects of that. Slow growth, stagnant wages, low labor force participation....

Wages are increasing, growth is doing fine. The country hasn't done this good in many years. The labor participation rate? That's a real sticky subject. Many industries (including mine) have tens of thousands of job openings, but aren't getting filled. Some would say that it's because wages are too low. Others say it's for different reasons that a border wall might help:

How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage

 

[Flopper]

JP Morgan was responsible for Dodd-Frank...to destroy smaller firms.
Just like Microsoft killed off smaller software firms by giving stuff away.

How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?

That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.

How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.

And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.

As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.

This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.

Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.

Why?

Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.

1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.

How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.

Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.

Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?

You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.

2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.

If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?

Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

 

[Brain357]

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

Why? The company gets what they want, the manager gets what he or she wants. If the managers decisions were counterproductive, then that manager has to answer for the results of their actions.

Even ceos don't answer for their actions. As long as the company keep going, nobody cares.

You get paid to do X job. If you do X job, then correct, nobody cares.

And our economy is seeing the effects of that. Slow growth, stagnant wages, low labor force participation....

Wages are increasing, growth is doing fine. The country hasn't done this good in many years. The labor participation rate? That's a real sticky subject. Many industries (including mine) have tens of thousands of job openings, but aren't getting filled. Some would say that it's because wages are too low. Others say it's for different reasons that a border wall might help:

How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage

Wages are increasing at a really slow rate, not really keeping up with inflation. First quarter growth was only 2.2%, pretty slow by strong economy standards. Participation is low, clearly it isn't a worker economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?

That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.

How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.

And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.

As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.

This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.

Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.

Why?

Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.

1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.

How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.

Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.

Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?

You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.

2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.

If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?

Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

 

[Flopper]

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

Why? The company gets what they want, the manager gets what he or she wants. If the managers decisions were counterproductive, then that manager has to answer for the results of their actions.

Even ceos don't answer for their actions. As long as the company keep going, nobody cares.

You get paid to do X job. If you do X job, then correct, nobody cares.

And our economy is seeing the effects of that. Slow growth, stagnant wages, low labor force participation....

Wages are increasing, growth is doing fine. The country hasn't done this good in many years. The labor participation rate? That's a real sticky subject. Many industries (including mine) have tens of thousands of job openings, but aren't getting filled. Some would say that it's because wages are too low. Others say it's for different reasons that a border wall might help:

How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage

Once the unemployment rate gets as low as it is now, many of the unemployed are structurally unemployed. Others can't work for various reasons or they just don't want to work or don't need to work. So when businesses offer higher wages, they will get marginally productive workers which hurts productivity but the higher wages increases consumption and the demand for more goods and services thus pushing inflation up. Zero unemployment is not possible and if were we wouldn't want it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why? The company gets what they want, the manager gets what he or she wants. If the managers decisions were counterproductive, then that manager has to answer for the results of their actions.

Even ceos don't answer for their actions. As long as the company keep going, nobody cares.

You get paid to do X job. If you do X job, then correct, nobody cares.

And our economy is seeing the effects of that. Slow growth, stagnant wages, low labor force participation....

Wages are increasing, growth is doing fine. The country hasn't done this good in many years. The labor participation rate? That's a real sticky subject. Many industries (including mine) have tens of thousands of job openings, but aren't getting filled. Some would say that it's because wages are too low. Others say it's for different reasons that a border wall might help:

How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage

Wages are increasing at a really slow rate, not really keeping up with inflation. First quarter growth was only 2.2%, pretty slow by strong economy standards. Participation is low, clearly it isn't a worker economy.

So by your response I take it you didn't even click the link. Let me summarize for you:

A suspected problem for the low participation rate is drug addiction. Because many companies drug test their employees to get cheaper rates on Workman's Compensation, there are millions of Americans that can't get a job. They either can't pass a drug test or can't get a job because of past criminal convictions due to drugs.

There are a couple of ways to address this problem: One, build the wall. Put more effort into seizure of addictive drugs getting into this country, or two: Make a law that companies and government can no longer use drug screening to hire or keep employees.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why? The company gets what they want, the manager gets what he or she wants. If the managers decisions were counterproductive, then that manager has to answer for the results of their actions.

Even ceos don't answer for their actions. As long as the company keep going, nobody cares.

You get paid to do X job. If you do X job, then correct, nobody cares.

And our economy is seeing the effects of that. Slow growth, stagnant wages, low labor force participation....

Wages are increasing, growth is doing fine. The country hasn't done this good in many years. The labor participation rate? That's a real sticky subject. Many industries (including mine) have tens of thousands of job openings, but aren't getting filled. Some would say that it's because wages are too low. Others say it's for different reasons that a border wall might help:

How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage

Once the unemployment rate gets as low as it is now, many of the unemployed are structurally unemployed. Others can't work for various reasons or they just don't want to work or don't need to work. So when businesses offer higher wages, they will get marginally productive workers which hurts productivity but the higher wages increases consumption and the demand for more goods and services thus pushing inflation up. Zero unemployment is not possible and if were we wouldn't want it.

I don't know about you, but I can't do without an income of some kind. I'm not working for the fun of it. I need a paycheck every two weeks to pay bills.

That being said, one has to ask what do people do for survival when they are technically employable but not working? A working spouse? Yes, that could be the reason for some. Living at home with their parents? More people likely to be doing that. The quickly growing number of millionaires in this country? That could be true too. But not all these people.

Since the problem seems to be growing, something has to have changed over years that's responsible. Today, people can live on government benefits and not have to work. Maybe what we really need in this country is government program reforms; programs that are only available to people that truly need them, and not people that just don't want to work.

 

[Brain357]

Even ceos don't answer for their actions. As long as the company keep going, nobody cares.

You get paid to do X job. If you do X job, then correct, nobody cares.

And our economy is seeing the effects of that. Slow growth, stagnant wages, low labor force participation....

Wages are increasing, growth is doing fine. The country hasn't done this good in many years. The labor participation rate? That's a real sticky subject. Many industries (including mine) have tens of thousands of job openings, but aren't getting filled. Some would say that it's because wages are too low. Others say it's for different reasons that a border wall might help:

How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage

Once the unemployment rate gets as low as it is now, many of the unemployed are structurally unemployed. Others can't work for various reasons or they just don't want to work or don't need to work. So when businesses offer higher wages, they will get marginally productive workers which hurts productivity but the higher wages increases consumption and the demand for more goods and services thus pushing inflation up. Zero unemployment is not possible and if were we wouldn't want it.

I don't know about you, but I can't do without an income of some kind. I'm not working for the fun of it. I need a paycheck every two weeks to pay bills.

That being said, one has to ask what do people do for survival when they are technically employable but not working? A working spouse? Yes, that could be the reason for some. Living at home with their parents? More people likely to be doing that. The quickly growing number of millionaires in this country? That could be true too. But not all these people.

Since the problem seems to be growing, something has to have changed over years that's responsible. Today, people can live on government benefits and not have to work. Maybe what we really need in this country is government program reforms; programs that are only available to people that truly need them, and not people that just don't want to work.

I there were lots of good paying jobs more would be working. The problem is we have lots of low paying jobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You get paid to do X job. If you do X job, then correct, nobody cares.

And our economy is seeing the effects of that. Slow growth, stagnant wages, low labor force participation....

Wages are increasing, growth is doing fine. The country hasn't done this good in many years. The labor participation rate? That's a real sticky subject. Many industries (including mine) have tens of thousands of job openings, but aren't getting filled. Some would say that it's because wages are too low. Others say it's for different reasons that a border wall might help:

How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage

Once the unemployment rate gets as low as it is now, many of the unemployed are structurally unemployed. Others can't work for various reasons or they just don't want to work or don't need to work. So when businesses offer higher wages, they will get marginally productive workers which hurts productivity but the higher wages increases consumption and the demand for more goods and services thus pushing inflation up. Zero unemployment is not possible and if were we wouldn't want it.

I don't know about you, but I can't do without an income of some kind. I'm not working for the fun of it. I need a paycheck every two weeks to pay bills.

That being said, one has to ask what do people do for survival when they are technically employable but not working? A working spouse? Yes, that could be the reason for some. Living at home with their parents? More people likely to be doing that. The quickly growing number of millionaires in this country? That could be true too. But not all these people.

Since the problem seems to be growing, something has to have changed over years that's responsible. Today, people can live on government benefits and not have to work. Maybe what we really need in this country is government program reforms; programs that are only available to people that truly need them, and not people that just don't want to work.

I there were lots of good paying jobs more would be working. The problem is we have lots of low paying jobs.

No, that's not the problem. We have plenty of good paying jobs as well, and people are not taking them.

 

[Flopper]

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest. Compared to a hundred years ago, we are a throw away society. Buy it today and replace it tomorrow with something bigger and fancier.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

 

[Flopper]

And our economy is seeing the effects of that. Slow growth, stagnant wages, low labor force participation....

Wages are increasing, growth is doing fine. The country hasn't done this good in many years. The labor participation rate? That's a real sticky subject. Many industries (including mine) have tens of thousands of job openings, but aren't getting filled. Some would say that it's because wages are too low. Others say it's for different reasons that a border wall might help:

How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage

Once the unemployment rate gets as low as it is now, many of the unemployed are structurally unemployed. Others can't work for various reasons or they just don't want to work or don't need to work. So when businesses offer higher wages, they will get marginally productive workers which hurts productivity but the higher wages increases consumption and the demand for more goods and services thus pushing inflation up. Zero unemployment is not possible and if were we wouldn't want it.

I don't know about you, but I can't do without an income of some kind. I'm not working for the fun of it. I need a paycheck every two weeks to pay bills.

That being said, one has to ask what do people do for survival when they are technically employable but not working? A working spouse? Yes, that could be the reason for some. Living at home with their parents? More people likely to be doing that. The quickly growing number of millionaires in this country? That could be true too. But not all these people.

Since the problem seems to be growing, something has to have changed over years that's responsible. Today, people can live on government benefits and not have to work. Maybe what we really need in this country is government program reforms; programs that are only available to people that truly need them, and not people that just don't want to work.

I there were lots of good paying jobs more would be working. The problem is we have lots of low paying jobs.

No, that's not the problem. We have plenty of good paying jobs as well, and people are not taking them.

When you look at those jobs carefully, you see why they pay so well. There are few people qualified to do them.

 

[Indeependent]

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest. Compared to a hundred years ago, we are a throw away society. Buy it today and replace it tomorrow with something bigger and fancier.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

I see you don't spend too much time on Amazon.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

There is some truth to what you say, but it's not the driver.

The fact is that we have so many more things we buy today than we did in let's say 1970. In 1970, you had one landline phone, a color television set if you were lucky, a stereo with an 8-track player perhaps.

You expected to keep these items for many years, and maybe if something awful happened, pass them on to your heirs. Most families were one car families, and fast food was a delicacy and not a weekly staple. A movie? Put the family in the car and let's go to the drive-in a couple times a year.

Look at all the things we spend money on today: cell phone plan for the entire family including unlimited data, video games galore; several systems in many cases, pay per view, Netflix, cable or satellite television, satellite radio, computers, computer programs, internet.........

With all this new spending we have today, you have to get other items at a cheaper price. These items are no longer recreational, they are necessities today.