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

[Flopper]

These policies are good for Americans and America. More freedom and less government is always good for the people. If the weak get weeded out along the way, that is the nature of life.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Your characterization of people that can't find decent jobs as "weak" is incorrect and just an excuse for you to dismiss the valid interests of people you don't like.


The rest of US, will be taking steps to improve the job market, so that those people can find better jobs, and that wages will rise for the rest of US also.


You need to start explaining what is so great about the status quo, that you don't care about if it is good for other people or not.


Are you just that personally selfish? Or are you so full of hate that you support these policies BECAUSE they hurt working class whites?

You need to tell me what sucks so much about 4% unemployment, more jobs than people to fill them and 108 straight months of economic expansion.

I already described the economic pain hidden by those numbers. Your response was that those people should just die off.

How are you going to improve upon a job market that already has more jobs than people to fill them?

More good jobs and rising wages, across the board.

Anyone that cannot find a “descent” job is either not looking or needs some new skills.

I'm not sure what bubble you are living in. But you need to get out more.

And once again you call me full of hate when it is you that only cares about white people.

No, I was referencing the people you said, repeatedly now, that you want to die off.

Me replying to what YOU said about white people, you race baiting moron.

Currently there are 6.8 million job openings. That figure is forecast to rise to 34 million by 2024 unless something changes.

If you want a job it is there, but it may not be in the little town you live in and it may require you to take on more responsibilities than you won't and work longer hours and go school at night.

Jobs have changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years. Most new employers today look at applicants asking what can you do for me. They don't hire people just to fill a desk chair and move papers across a desk or fill a slot on an assembly line. As an employee, you have to be flexible, do different jobs, take on different products, improve your education. You are more likely today to be hired if you assure the boss you can do the job. However, you are more likely to be fired if you can't.

I believe a lot of these changes are due to the flattening of the management structure. Where once an employee use to report to a group leader, who reported to a section head, who reported to the department head, who reported to a division head. Today, the employee is likely to report directly to department head who reports to the CEO. So your boss has a wider view of the business and has a better understanding of how his people directly effect the end product and profits. This carries right down to the employee so he or she is more likely see himself as a key component in the organization.

The old jobs of 40 or 50 years ago are gone and not going to return and no amount government interference in the market place is going to change that.

The bottom line is if you can't pull your weight, there's not likely to be a union or an employee rule book that will save your job. Some people just can't make it in this new environment. That's why we have safety nets.

I see a lot in there about what workers have to do, and shit about what employers have to do.


I've been in situations where the power has been reversed, and the employER had to put his mind towards what he could offer me.


That's what I want to see for more of my fellow Americans. Cause let me tell you, if was ******* great.


Your assumption that the changes you have seen are inevitable and immutable, is just you being too close to the problem.

With falling unemployment, employees will be able to demand higher wages and many people will be hired that aren't really qualified. That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

So what about the minimum wage argument; some of whom claim $15.00 per hour would be the solution to all our problems?

 

[Correll]

If tariffs make US manufacturing more competitive, that will encourage more investment in US manufacturing both by US companies and foreign companies, I have received some very encouraging anecdotal reports on this, and it is verified by the surge in manufacturing employment.


AND, might I add, that, the status quo that you are so supportive of, is not sustainable, because, someday, those loans will grow beyond our ability to service them.


Then the House of Cards, come tumbling down in flames and ruin.


The sooner we change that shit, the better.

In markets not controlled by the goverment, companies become more competitive by producing a better product for the price. This is the kind of success that brings in investment capital and opens up new markets.

Steel and Aluminum companies don't have worry about producing better products at better prices. They just have to lobby congress and the administration to keep those tariffs coming to force Americans to buy their products.

And that House of Cards is far more likely to come tumbling down when Americans are paying more and getting less.

1. The world market is controlled by governments and government policies. See the EU support of Airbus, as a small symbolic example, or the Chinese government's refusal to crack down on movie pirating.


2. If the American manufacturers cant' compete with foreign manufacturers, and the massive and ever growing trade deficit shows they, in large, they cannot, regardless of what the reason is, then we need to consider how American interests are served by constantly losing.

If you do little checking you'll


3. This country is not going to fall apart because of a small dialing back of the consumer economy. 17% more for washers and dryers? I just bought a washer and dryer for my rental unit, if the prices were inflated, it did not slow me down, or place undue hardship on me.

1. No government intervention in international trade is at an all time low. 47% of American goods are traded without tariffs, at least they were till Trump started his trade war.

Yeah, that sounds like bullshit. Perhaps 47% don't have a FORMAL OR OBVIOUS tariff, but the assholes that wanted to make Boeing bleed and scream, aren't the type of people to hesitate to hide a tariff or lie about it.

The WTO, ruled against the EU on subsidies and they began rectifying the situation within days. Still pending is the EU complaint of US support of Boeing in violation of WTO rules.

No, they didn't. The EU appealed. The article I read, the people involved, did not really expect any real impact any time soon.

The WTO has dozens of complaints against the US as it does most all major economic powers. When we look at most complaints, the intent was not to give a company or industry unfair advantage. For example, the State of Washington gave Boeing substantial tax breaks to make the state more attractive to the air frame business. France has also done the same.

If such breaks were that significant, I don't think that we would have had decades of trade deficits in the hundreds of billions a year.

Sounds like, at best, a false equivalence and at worse, just a bad actor trying to muddle the waters to fool the gullible.

The EU claims the US government has awarded huge military contracts to Boeing and profits were moved to finance the expansion of it's commercial air frame division.

Takes some serious gall to complain about money spent on military equipment that is used to protect them.

The US and other countries are protesting the price cuts in Chinese steel in 2018. The reason for the price cuts is China overproduced steel in 2017 in order to have sufficient supply to satisfy demand in 2018 because of mandated mill closures to revamp the mills due to environmental problems. The price cuts seem a clear violation of WTO rules but again it seems the intent was not to force competition out of the market.

I'm sure that that is a great comfort to steel workers around the world that lose jobs.

I want to be clear about something. I'm past caring about reasons or excuses for why this trade is not beneficial to US.


Time to balance it or stop it. Either way works for me.

Not long ago, China was an oasis for pirated music and videos. CDs and DVDs were easily copied and sold cheaply at roadside markets. That is changing rapidly with technological changes primarily streaming video and greater enforcement of copyright laws which protects both Chinese and foreign media companies. DVD and CD sales have dropped 28% drop last year and will continue to drop as the nation turns to streaming.

So, we just forget about the hundreds of billions of intellectual property that was stolen and continue to be stolen, because the rate of theft is dropping?

Yeah, that's not the way I roll.

2. That's not true. US exports have increased 60% since 2010. Most American business sectors compete quite well in foreign markets. Most of the industries that don't complete well in foreign markets are those that are very labor insensitive or the completion has a distinct advantage due demographics or geography.

The mistake most people make in looking at US trade is assuming the trade deficit is due to the inability of US industries to compete which is not so.

The fact is our trade deficit is due to the fact that Americans consume much more than they produce thus we import to make up the difference. Trying to blame this on cheating by other countries is absurd. The US has not had trade surplus since 1975. To generate a surplus we are going to have to consume less or produce more both of which has consequence. It's that simple.

I vote for both actually.

Applying tariffs forces people to either pay more for American good or get poorer quality, so consumers suffers. Retaliatory tariffs by other countries on American exports hurts businesses and thus their employees. So a tariff war hurts both producers and consumers. The same is true for other countries. If the war accelerates, you end up with a worldwide recession and everybody loses.

IF that is true, than why are the other nation's leaders retaliating? What is so valuable that they are wiling to risk that?

 

[Correll]

Your characterization of people that can't find decent jobs as "weak" is incorrect and just an excuse for you to dismiss the valid interests of people you don't like.


The rest of US, will be taking steps to improve the job market, so that those people can find better jobs, and that wages will rise for the rest of US also.


You need to start explaining what is so great about the status quo, that you don't care about if it is good for other people or not.


Are you just that personally selfish? Or are you so full of hate that you support these policies BECAUSE they hurt working class whites?

You need to tell me what sucks so much about 4% unemployment, more jobs than people to fill them and 108 straight months of economic expansion.

I already described the economic pain hidden by those numbers. Your response was that those people should just die off.

How are you going to improve upon a job market that already has more jobs than people to fill them?

More good jobs and rising wages, across the board.

Anyone that cannot find a “descent” job is either not looking or needs some new skills.

I'm not sure what bubble you are living in. But you need to get out more.

And once again you call me full of hate when it is you that only cares about white people.

No, I was referencing the people you said, repeatedly now, that you want to die off.

Me replying to what YOU said about white people, you race baiting moron.

Currently there are 6.8 million job openings. That figure is forecast to rise to 34 million by 2024 unless something changes.

If you want a job it is there, but it may not be in the little town you live in and it may require you to take on more responsibilities than you won't and work longer hours and go school at night.

Jobs have changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years. Most new employers today look at applicants asking what can you do for me. They don't hire people just to fill a desk chair and move papers across a desk or fill a slot on an assembly line. As an employee, you have to be flexible, do different jobs, take on different products, improve your education. You are more likely today to be hired if you assure the boss you can do the job. However, you are more likely to be fired if you can't.

I believe a lot of these changes are due to the flattening of the management structure. Where once an employee use to report to a group leader, who reported to a section head, who reported to the department head, who reported to a division head. Today, the employee is likely to report directly to department head who reports to the CEO. So your boss has a wider view of the business and has a better understanding of how his people directly effect the end product and profits. This carries right down to the employee so he or she is more likely see himself as a key component in the organization.

The old jobs of 40 or 50 years ago are gone and not going to return and no amount government interference in the market place is going to change that.

The bottom line is if you can't pull your weight, there's not likely to be a union or an employee rule book that will save your job. Some people just can't make it in this new environment. That's why we have safety nets.

I see a lot in there about what workers have to do, and shit about what employers have to do.


I've been in situations where the power has been reversed, and the employER had to put his mind towards what he could offer me.


That's what I want to see for more of my fellow Americans. Cause let me tell you, if was ******* great.


Your assumption that the changes you have seen are inevitable and immutable, is just you being too close to the problem.

With falling unemployment, employees will be able to demand higher wages and many people will be hired that aren't really qualified. That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

Higher wages means more men being able to provide for their families, thus more families.


More families means more people with good, fulfilling lives, raising healthy and productive children.


More and wealthier families means less demand on social services.


more tax revenues.


less crime.


less drug use.


less illegitimacy (a nice reinforcing positive cycle there)


more money to spend on the more American products at the store.


It means a better society to live in.


If the cost is a slightly lower return on my mutual funds, I'm willing, no. I am EAGER to make that sacrifice.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You need to tell me what sucks so much about 4% unemployment, more jobs than people to fill them and 108 straight months of economic expansion.

I already described the economic pain hidden by those numbers. Your response was that those people should just die off.

How are you going to improve upon a job market that already has more jobs than people to fill them?

More good jobs and rising wages, across the board.

Anyone that cannot find a “descent” job is either not looking or needs some new skills.

I'm not sure what bubble you are living in. But you need to get out more.

And once again you call me full of hate when it is you that only cares about white people.

No, I was referencing the people you said, repeatedly now, that you want to die off.

Me replying to what YOU said about white people, you race baiting moron.

Currently there are 6.8 million job openings. That figure is forecast to rise to 34 million by 2024 unless something changes.

If you want a job it is there, but it may not be in the little town you live in and it may require you to take on more responsibilities than you won't and work longer hours and go school at night.

Jobs have changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years. Most new employers today look at applicants asking what can you do for me. They don't hire people just to fill a desk chair and move papers across a desk or fill a slot on an assembly line. As an employee, you have to be flexible, do different jobs, take on different products, improve your education. You are more likely today to be hired if you assure the boss you can do the job. However, you are more likely to be fired if you can't.

I believe a lot of these changes are due to the flattening of the management structure. Where once an employee use to report to a group leader, who reported to a section head, who reported to the department head, who reported to a division head. Today, the employee is likely to report directly to department head who reports to the CEO. So your boss has a wider view of the business and has a better understanding of how his people directly effect the end product and profits. This carries right down to the employee so he or she is more likely see himself as a key component in the organization.

The old jobs of 40 or 50 years ago are gone and not going to return and no amount government interference in the market place is going to change that.

The bottom line is if you can't pull your weight, there's not likely to be a union or an employee rule book that will save your job. Some people just can't make it in this new environment. That's why we have safety nets.

I see a lot in there about what workers have to do, and shit about what employers have to do.


I've been in situations where the power has been reversed, and the employER had to put his mind towards what he could offer me.


That's what I want to see for more of my fellow Americans. Cause let me tell you, if was ******* great.


Your assumption that the changes you have seen are inevitable and immutable, is just you being too close to the problem.

With falling unemployment, employees will be able to demand higher wages and many people will be hired that aren't really qualified. That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

Higher wages means more men being able to provide for their families, thus more families.


More families means more people with good, fulfilling lives, raising healthy and productive children.


More and wealthier families means less demand on social services.


more tax revenues.


less crime.


less drug use.


less illegitimacy (a nice reinforcing positive cycle there)


more money to spend on the more American products at the store.


It means a better society to live in.


If the cost is a slightly lower return on my mutual funds, I'm willing, no. I am EAGER to make that sacrifice.

What your missing is that with artificially increased wages comes an equal rise in prices, which negates the effects of the raise in wages.

Yes, people will be able to look at their check and feel all warm inside, but it will be an illusion as their extra money will be eaten up by inflation.

It is the same reason the artificial minimum wage does not solve any problems.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Correll]

I already described the economic pain hidden by those numbers. Your response was that those people should just die off.




More good jobs and rising wages, across the board.


I'm not sure what bubble you are living in. But you need to get out more.





No, I was referencing the people you said, repeatedly now, that you want to die off.

Me replying to what YOU said about white people, you race baiting moron.

Currently there are 6.8 million job openings. That figure is forecast to rise to 34 million by 2024 unless something changes.

If you want a job it is there, but it may not be in the little town you live in and it may require you to take on more responsibilities than you won't and work longer hours and go school at night.

Jobs have changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years. Most new employers today look at applicants asking what can you do for me. They don't hire people just to fill a desk chair and move papers across a desk or fill a slot on an assembly line. As an employee, you have to be flexible, do different jobs, take on different products, improve your education. You are more likely today to be hired if you assure the boss you can do the job. However, you are more likely to be fired if you can't.

I believe a lot of these changes are due to the flattening of the management structure. Where once an employee use to report to a group leader, who reported to a section head, who reported to the department head, who reported to a division head. Today, the employee is likely to report directly to department head who reports to the CEO. So your boss has a wider view of the business and has a better understanding of how his people directly effect the end product and profits. This carries right down to the employee so he or she is more likely see himself as a key component in the organization.

The old jobs of 40 or 50 years ago are gone and not going to return and no amount government interference in the market place is going to change that.

The bottom line is if you can't pull your weight, there's not likely to be a union or an employee rule book that will save your job. Some people just can't make it in this new environment. That's why we have safety nets.

I see a lot in there about what workers have to do, and shit about what employers have to do.


I've been in situations where the power has been reversed, and the employER had to put his mind towards what he could offer me.


That's what I want to see for more of my fellow Americans. Cause let me tell you, if was ******* great.


Your assumption that the changes you have seen are inevitable and immutable, is just you being too close to the problem.

With falling unemployment, employees will be able to demand higher wages and many people will be hired that aren't really qualified. That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

Higher wages means more men being able to provide for their families, thus more families.


More families means more people with good, fulfilling lives, raising healthy and productive children.


More and wealthier families means less demand on social services.


more tax revenues.


less crime.


less drug use.


less illegitimacy (a nice reinforcing positive cycle there)


more money to spend on the more American products at the store.


It means a better society to live in.


If the cost is a slightly lower return on my mutual funds, I'm willing, no. I am EAGER to make that sacrifice.

What your missing is that with artificially increased wages comes an equal rise in prices, which negates the effects of the raise in wages.

Yes, people will be able to look at their check and feel all warm inside, but it will be an illusion as their extra money will be eaten up by inflation.

It is the same reason the artificial minimum wage does not solve any problems.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Except that wages are only part of the price of any product or service. So, the increase in prices can be far less than the increase in wages.


My post stands.






Higher wages means more men being able to provide for their families, thus more families.


More families means more people with good, fulfilling lives, raising healthy and productive children.


More and wealthier families means less demand on social services.


more tax revenues.


less crime.


less drug use.


less illegitimacy (a nice reinforcing positive cycle there)


more money to spend on the more American products at the store.


It means a better society to live in.


If the cost is a slightly lower return on my mutual funds, I'm willing, no. I am EAGER to make that sacrifice.

 

[Flopper]

That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

So what about the minimum wage argument; some of whom claim $15.00 per hour would be the solution to all our problems?

Minimum wage increases have little or no long term positive effect. Raising minimum wage eventually pushes all wages higher and when wages go up without increases in productivity prices rise. So over the long run minimum wages do little to redistribute wealth or to increase personal income. I tend to think they have little long term impact on the economy.

Wages that rise do to market demand spurred by increases in productivity benefits everyone, employee, employer, and consumers. However, wages that rise because shortages in workforce are not beneficial to society because the employer is hiring the bottom of barrel, marginal workers who are less productive.

 

[Flopper]

You need to tell me what sucks so much about 4% unemployment, more jobs than people to fill them and 108 straight months of economic expansion.

I already described the economic pain hidden by those numbers. Your response was that those people should just die off.

How are you going to improve upon a job market that already has more jobs than people to fill them?

More good jobs and rising wages, across the board.

Anyone that cannot find a “descent” job is either not looking or needs some new skills.

I'm not sure what bubble you are living in. But you need to get out more.

And once again you call me full of hate when it is you that only cares about white people.

No, I was referencing the people you said, repeatedly now, that you want to die off.

Me replying to what YOU said about white people, you race baiting moron.

Currently there are 6.8 million job openings. That figure is forecast to rise to 34 million by 2024 unless something changes.

If you want a job it is there, but it may not be in the little town you live in and it may require you to take on more responsibilities than you won't and work longer hours and go school at night.

Jobs have changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years. Most new employers today look at applicants asking what can you do for me. They don't hire people just to fill a desk chair and move papers across a desk or fill a slot on an assembly line. As an employee, you have to be flexible, do different jobs, take on different products, improve your education. You are more likely today to be hired if you assure the boss you can do the job. However, you are more likely to be fired if you can't.

I believe a lot of these changes are due to the flattening of the management structure. Where once an employee use to report to a group leader, who reported to a section head, who reported to the department head, who reported to a division head. Today, the employee is likely to report directly to department head who reports to the CEO. So your boss has a wider view of the business and has a better understanding of how his people directly effect the end product and profits. This carries right down to the employee so he or she is more likely see himself as a key component in the organization.

The old jobs of 40 or 50 years ago are gone and not going to return and no amount government interference in the market place is going to change that.

The bottom line is if you can't pull your weight, there's not likely to be a union or an employee rule book that will save your job. Some people just can't make it in this new environment. That's why we have safety nets.

I see a lot in there about what workers have to do, and shit about what employers have to do.


I've been in situations where the power has been reversed, and the employER had to put his mind towards what he could offer me.


That's what I want to see for more of my fellow Americans. Cause let me tell you, if was ******* great.


Your assumption that the changes you have seen are inevitable and immutable, is just you being too close to the problem.

With falling unemployment, employees will be able to demand higher wages and many people will be hired that aren't really qualified. That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

Higher wages means more men being able to provide for their families, thus more families.


More families means more people with good, fulfilling lives, raising healthy and productive children.


More and wealthier families means less demand on social services.


more tax revenues.


less crime.


less drug use.


less illegitimacy (a nice reinforcing positive cycle there)


more money to spend on the more American products at the store.


It means a better society to live in.


If the cost is a slightly lower return on my mutual funds, I'm willing, no. I am EAGER to make that sacrifice.

Higher wages when there is shortage of workers means the employer must hire marginal workers, those he would not normally consider as they are generally less productive. When an employer must spend more on wages and without a corresponding increases in productivity then prices rise. Once the shortage of labor is resolved these employees will find themselves out of a job again.

As long as the number of open jobs are just a few million, employers will be able to find productive employees but when that figures goes to 20 or 30 million, then employers will be hiring low productivity workers and paying higher wages and will still have many millions of unfilled jobs. The result will be higher prices and lower quality and American will be unable to compete in foreign markets.

 

[basquebromance]

China is putting tariffs on soybeans, the biggest states that affects are states that have Senate seats up in the midterms. very strategic by China!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

So what about the minimum wage argument; some of whom claim $15.00 per hour would be the solution to all our problems?

Minimum wage increases have little or no long term positive effect. Raising minimum wage eventually pushes all wages higher and when wages go up without increases in productivity prices rise. So over the long run minimum wages do little to redistribute wealth or to increase personal income. I tend to think they have little long term impact on the economy.

Wages that rise do to market demand spurred by increases in productivity benefits everyone, employee, employer, and consumers. However, wages that rise because shortages in workforce are not beneficial to society because the employer is hiring the bottom of barrel, marginal workers who are less productive.

And minimum wage doesn't have that affect? Who do you think are doing minimum wage jobs, the most productive of our society?

They both do the same thing in general as far as inflation is concerned. The employer still has to pay out more in labor costs. The difference is that in market demand, somebody making $20.00 an hour might see $22.00, but with forced minimum wage, somebody making $8.00 per hour will see $15.00 which is double the cost of labor to an employer.

So what's better, that we increase wages for senior citizens, stay at home moms, and kids in school, or middle-class America who are making mortgage payments, buying cars and taking vacations?

 

[Correll]

That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

So what about the minimum wage argument; some of whom claim $15.00 per hour would be the solution to all our problems?

Minimum wage increases have little or no long term positive effect. Raising minimum wage eventually pushes all wages higher and when wages go up without increases in productivity prices rise. So over the long run minimum wages do little to redistribute wealth or to increase personal income. I tend to think they have little long term impact on the economy.

Wages that rise do to market demand spurred by increases in productivity benefits everyone, employee, employer, and consumers. However, wages that rise because shortages in workforce are not beneficial to society because the employer is hiring the bottom of barrel, marginal workers who are less productive.

What of the fact that productivity has increased greatly over the last 40 years while wages have remained flat?

 

[Correll]

I already described the economic pain hidden by those numbers. Your response was that those people should just die off.




More good jobs and rising wages, across the board.


I'm not sure what bubble you are living in. But you need to get out more.





No, I was referencing the people you said, repeatedly now, that you want to die off.

Me replying to what YOU said about white people, you race baiting moron.

Currently there are 6.8 million job openings. That figure is forecast to rise to 34 million by 2024 unless something changes.

If you want a job it is there, but it may not be in the little town you live in and it may require you to take on more responsibilities than you won't and work longer hours and go school at night.

Jobs have changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years. Most new employers today look at applicants asking what can you do for me. They don't hire people just to fill a desk chair and move papers across a desk or fill a slot on an assembly line. As an employee, you have to be flexible, do different jobs, take on different products, improve your education. You are more likely today to be hired if you assure the boss you can do the job. However, you are more likely to be fired if you can't.

I believe a lot of these changes are due to the flattening of the management structure. Where once an employee use to report to a group leader, who reported to a section head, who reported to the department head, who reported to a division head. Today, the employee is likely to report directly to department head who reports to the CEO. So your boss has a wider view of the business and has a better understanding of how his people directly effect the end product and profits. This carries right down to the employee so he or she is more likely see himself as a key component in the organization.

The old jobs of 40 or 50 years ago are gone and not going to return and no amount government interference in the market place is going to change that.

The bottom line is if you can't pull your weight, there's not likely to be a union or an employee rule book that will save your job. Some people just can't make it in this new environment. That's why we have safety nets.

I see a lot in there about what workers have to do, and shit about what employers have to do.


I've been in situations where the power has been reversed, and the employER had to put his mind towards what he could offer me.


That's what I want to see for more of my fellow Americans. Cause let me tell you, if was ******* great.


Your assumption that the changes you have seen are inevitable and immutable, is just you being too close to the problem.

With falling unemployment, employees will be able to demand higher wages and many people will be hired that aren't really qualified. That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

Higher wages means more men being able to provide for their families, thus more families.


More families means more people with good, fulfilling lives, raising healthy and productive children.


More and wealthier families means less demand on social services.


more tax revenues.


less crime.


less drug use.


less illegitimacy (a nice reinforcing positive cycle there)


more money to spend on the more American products at the store.


It means a better society to live in.


If the cost is a slightly lower return on my mutual funds, I'm willing, no. I am EAGER to make that sacrifice.

Higher wages when there is shortage of workers means the employer must hire marginal workers, those he would not normally consider as they are generally less productive. When an employer must spend more on wages and without a corresponding increases in productivity then prices rise. Once the shortage of labor is resolved these employees will find themselves out of a job again.

As long as the number of open jobs are just a few million, employers will be able to find productive employees but when that figures goes to 20 or 30 million, then employers will be hiring low productivity workers and paying higher wages and will still have many millions of unfilled jobs. The result will be higher prices and lower quality and American will be unable to compete in foreign markets.

1. You did not at all address the positives of rising wages I listed above, nor offer any hint of your alternative to achieving a better society.

2. We are in and have been in for decades an artificial glut of labor, due to massive immigration, legal and illegal, and outsourcing. What we now consider a "shortage" could easily be a new normal of an American labor market dominated by AMERICAN LABOR.


3. We are not allowed to compete effectively now, for whatever reason as shown by our massive and ever growing trade deficits.

 

[Claudette]

If 17 bucks per 100 is going to break you, get a fuckin rock.

He needs to use the laundromat. That's where I do my laundry and I have a perfectly good washer and dryer at home.

At the laundromat you can do all your laundry at once for about 15 bucks. Works for me. LOL

 

[Correll]

If 17 bucks per 100 is going to break you, get a fuckin rock.

He needs to use the laundromat. That's where I do my laundry and I have a perfectly good washer and dryer at home.

At the laundromat you can do all your laundry at once for about 15 bucks. Works for me. LOL

It is an interesting toss up, two different types of convenience.

 

[Flopper]

That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

So what about the minimum wage argument; some of whom claim $15.00 per hour would be the solution to all our problems?

Minimum wage increases have little or no long term positive effect. Raising minimum wage eventually pushes all wages higher and when wages go up without increases in productivity prices rise. So over the long run minimum wages do little to redistribute wealth or to increase personal income. I tend to think they have little long term impact on the economy.

Wages that rise do to market demand spurred by increases in productivity benefits everyone, employee, employer, and consumers. However, wages that rise because shortages in workforce are not beneficial to society because the employer is hiring the bottom of barrel, marginal workers who are less productive.

What of the fact that productivity has increased greatly over the last 40 years while wages have remained flat?

Most of the productivity gains were not due to better workers but better technology.

 

[Flopper]

Currently there are 6.8 million job openings. That figure is forecast to rise to 34 million by 2024 unless something changes.

If you want a job it is there, but it may not be in the little town you live in and it may require you to take on more responsibilities than you won't and work longer hours and go school at night.

Jobs have changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years. Most new employers today look at applicants asking what can you do for me. They don't hire people just to fill a desk chair and move papers across a desk or fill a slot on an assembly line. As an employee, you have to be flexible, do different jobs, take on different products, improve your education. You are more likely today to be hired if you assure the boss you can do the job. However, you are more likely to be fired if you can't.

I believe a lot of these changes are due to the flattening of the management structure. Where once an employee use to report to a group leader, who reported to a section head, who reported to the department head, who reported to a division head. Today, the employee is likely to report directly to department head who reports to the CEO. So your boss has a wider view of the business and has a better understanding of how his people directly effect the end product and profits. This carries right down to the employee so he or she is more likely see himself as a key component in the organization.

The old jobs of 40 or 50 years ago are gone and not going to return and no amount government interference in the market place is going to change that.

The bottom line is if you can't pull your weight, there's not likely to be a union or an employee rule book that will save your job. Some people just can't make it in this new environment. That's why we have safety nets.

I see a lot in there about what workers have to do, and shit about what employers have to do.


I've been in situations where the power has been reversed, and the employER had to put his mind towards what he could offer me.


That's what I want to see for more of my fellow Americans. Cause let me tell you, if was ******* great.


Your assumption that the changes you have seen are inevitable and immutable, is just you being too close to the problem.

With falling unemployment, employees will be able to demand higher wages and many people will be hired that aren't really qualified. That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

Higher wages means more men being able to provide for their families, thus more families.


More families means more people with good, fulfilling lives, raising healthy and productive children.


More and wealthier families means less demand on social services.


more tax revenues.


less crime.


less drug use.


less illegitimacy (a nice reinforcing positive cycle there)


more money to spend on the more American products at the store.


It means a better society to live in.


If the cost is a slightly lower return on my mutual funds, I'm willing, no. I am EAGER to make that sacrifice.

Higher wages when there is shortage of workers means the employer must hire marginal workers, those he would not normally consider as they are generally less productive. When an employer must spend more on wages and without a corresponding increases in productivity then prices rise. Once the shortage of labor is resolved these employees will find themselves out of a job again.

As long as the number of open jobs are just a few million, employers will be able to find productive employees but when that figures goes to 20 or 30 million, then employers will be hiring low productivity workers and paying higher wages and will still have many millions of unfilled jobs. The result will be higher prices and lower quality and American will be unable to compete in foreign markets.

1. You did not at all address the positives of rising wages I listed above, nor offer any hint of your alternative to achieving a better society.

2. We are in and have been in for decades an artificial glut of labor, due to massive immigration, legal and illegal, and outsourcing. What we now consider a "shortage" could easily be a new normal of an American labor market dominated by AMERICAN LABOR.


3. We are not allowed to compete effectively now, for whatever reason as shown by our massive and ever growing trade deficits.

1. Rising wages are good for the economy as long as they are associated with higher productivity. Having to hire less productive workers at higher wages is bad as I mentioned above. The key to achieving a better society is better education. American needs to be the world leader in education. We were in the mid 20th century which was a key component in our economic growth. However, other nations caught up with with us and some surpassed us.

2. Over the last 4 years we have gone from a surplus in the labor market to a shortage of now over 6 million. With 19 million workers a day reaching 65 and the economy adding over 200,000 jobs a month, economists are projecting a 34 million employee shortage by 2024. Those new jobs are going to be filled by immigrants or they will go out the country. There is no other option.

3. Our trade deficit is not do to our inability to compete. Our trade deficit is due to our high rate of spending (consumption). Our exports are increasing rapidly. Since 2008 our exports have increase 75%. However, for the same period our imports have matched those exports so our yearly trade deficit today is little different than it was 10 years ago.

The only way we are going to significant reduce our trade deficit is by spending less and saving more. That will decrease domestic consumption and will make more capital available for expansion of industry to produce more exports. However, we don't need to do that and we shouldn't because it will bring on a recession or an economic slow down. There is nothing wrong with a trade deficit as long as it is not growing rapidly the way it was between 1990 and 2010.

 

[Correll]

That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

So what about the minimum wage argument; some of whom claim $15.00 per hour would be the solution to all our problems?

Minimum wage increases have little or no long term positive effect. Raising minimum wage eventually pushes all wages higher and when wages go up without increases in productivity prices rise. So over the long run minimum wages do little to redistribute wealth or to increase personal income. I tend to think they have little long term impact on the economy.

Wages that rise do to market demand spurred by increases in productivity benefits everyone, employee, employer, and consumers. However, wages that rise because shortages in workforce are not beneficial to society because the employer is hiring the bottom of barrel, marginal workers who are less productive.

What of the fact that productivity has increased greatly over the last 40 years while wages have remained flat?

Most of the productivity gains were not due to better workers but better technology.

1. I've never heard anything about that being relevant in the past.

2. And maybe most, but far from all, and still wages flat.

 

[Correll]

I see a lot in there about what workers have to do, and shit about what employers have to do.


I've been in situations where the power has been reversed, and the employER had to put his mind towards what he could offer me.


That's what I want to see for more of my fellow Americans. Cause let me tell you, if was ******* great.


Your assumption that the changes you have seen are inevitable and immutable, is just you being too close to the problem.

With falling unemployment, employees will be able to demand higher wages and many people will be hired that aren't really qualified. That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

Higher wages means more men being able to provide for their families, thus more families.


More families means more people with good, fulfilling lives, raising healthy and productive children.


More and wealthier families means less demand on social services.


more tax revenues.


less crime.


less drug use.


less illegitimacy (a nice reinforcing positive cycle there)


more money to spend on the more American products at the store.


It means a better society to live in.


If the cost is a slightly lower return on my mutual funds, I'm willing, no. I am EAGER to make that sacrifice.

Higher wages when there is shortage of workers means the employer must hire marginal workers, those he would not normally consider as they are generally less productive. When an employer must spend more on wages and without a corresponding increases in productivity then prices rise. Once the shortage of labor is resolved these employees will find themselves out of a job again.

As long as the number of open jobs are just a few million, employers will be able to find productive employees but when that figures goes to 20 or 30 million, then employers will be hiring low productivity workers and paying higher wages and will still have many millions of unfilled jobs. The result will be higher prices and lower quality and American will be unable to compete in foreign markets.

1. You did not at all address the positives of rising wages I listed above, nor offer any hint of your alternative to achieving a better society.

2. We are in and have been in for decades an artificial glut of labor, due to massive immigration, legal and illegal, and outsourcing. What we now consider a "shortage" could easily be a new normal of an American labor market dominated by AMERICAN LABOR.


3. We are not allowed to compete effectively now, for whatever reason as shown by our massive and ever growing trade deficits.

1. Rising wages are good for the economy as long as they are associated with higher productivity. Having to hire less productive workers at higher wages is bad as I mentioned above. The key to achieving a better society is better education. American needs to be the world leader in education. We were in the mid 20th century which was a key component in our economic growth. However, other nations caught up with with us and some surpassed us.

We have approximately four times the population of Germany, yet they produce twice as many cars as us, while their car manufacturing workers make twice as much.

German car workers are not twice as educated as ours, nor twice as productive.


I don't believe the evidence supports your claim that education is the answer.


And my list of the positives of higher wages, stands. It would be good for American society overall.

2. Over the last 4 years we have gone from a surplus in the labor market to a shortage of now over 6 million. With 19 million workers a day reaching 65 and the economy adding over 200,000 jobs a month, economists are projecting a 34 million employee shortage by 2024. Those new jobs are going to be filled by immigrants or they will go out the country. There is no other option.

Then let them go. America is more than just an economy. I would rather have a smaller nation, that is still America, than some bloated powerhouse that doesn't feel like home.

And I still want higher wages. We've accepted wage stagnation for far too long.

3. Our trade deficit is not do to our inability to compete. Our trade deficit is due to our high rate of spending (consumption). Our exports are increasing rapidly. Since 2008 our exports have increase 75%. However, for the same period our imports have matched those exports so our yearly trade deficit today is little different than it was 10 years ago.

The only way we are going to significant reduce our trade deficit is by spending less and saving more. That will decrease domestic consumption and will make more capital available for expansion of industry to produce more exports. However, we don't need to do that and we shouldn't because it will bring on a recession or an economic slow down. There is nothing wrong with a trade deficit as long as it is not growing rapidly the way it was between 1990 and 2010.

Your point about increased exports is interesting.

But it does not seem to explain the results we see in the real world.


If exports are up, why are wages flat?


How can German car workers make so much? Is it just a coincidence that they have a large trade surplus? I don't think so.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

With falling unemployment, employees will be able to demand higher wages and many people will be hired that aren't really qualified. That may be good for employees now but over the long haul it isn't. Paying more for less qualified employees means lower productivity, higher prices and lower sales abroad, none of which is good for the economy.

Higher wages means more men being able to provide for their families, thus more families.


More families means more people with good, fulfilling lives, raising healthy and productive children.


More and wealthier families means less demand on social services.


more tax revenues.


less crime.


less drug use.


less illegitimacy (a nice reinforcing positive cycle there)


more money to spend on the more American products at the store.


It means a better society to live in.


If the cost is a slightly lower return on my mutual funds, I'm willing, no. I am EAGER to make that sacrifice.

Higher wages when there is shortage of workers means the employer must hire marginal workers, those he would not normally consider as they are generally less productive. When an employer must spend more on wages and without a corresponding increases in productivity then prices rise. Once the shortage of labor is resolved these employees will find themselves out of a job again.

As long as the number of open jobs are just a few million, employers will be able to find productive employees but when that figures goes to 20 or 30 million, then employers will be hiring low productivity workers and paying higher wages and will still have many millions of unfilled jobs. The result will be higher prices and lower quality and American will be unable to compete in foreign markets.

1. You did not at all address the positives of rising wages I listed above, nor offer any hint of your alternative to achieving a better society.

2. We are in and have been in for decades an artificial glut of labor, due to massive immigration, legal and illegal, and outsourcing. What we now consider a "shortage" could easily be a new normal of an American labor market dominated by AMERICAN LABOR.


3. We are not allowed to compete effectively now, for whatever reason as shown by our massive and ever growing trade deficits.

1. Rising wages are good for the economy as long as they are associated with higher productivity. Having to hire less productive workers at higher wages is bad as I mentioned above. The key to achieving a better society is better education. American needs to be the world leader in education. We were in the mid 20th century which was a key component in our economic growth. However, other nations caught up with with us and some surpassed us.

We have approximately four times the population of Germany, yet they produce twice as many cars as us, while their car manufacturing workers make twice as much.

German car workers are not twice as educated as ours, nor twice as productive.


I don't believe the evidence supports your claim that education is the answer.


And my list of the positives of higher wages, stands. It would be good for American society overall.

2. Over the last 4 years we have gone from a surplus in the labor market to a shortage of now over 6 million. With 19 million workers a day reaching 65 and the economy adding over 200,000 jobs a month, economists are projecting a 34 million employee shortage by 2024. Those new jobs are going to be filled by immigrants or they will go out the country. There is no other option.

Then let them go. America is more than just an economy. I would rather have a smaller nation, that is still America, than some bloated powerhouse that doesn't feel like home.

And I still want higher wages. We've accepted wage stagnation for far too long.

3. Our trade deficit is not do to our inability to compete. Our trade deficit is due to our high rate of spending (consumption). Our exports are increasing rapidly. Since 2008 our exports have increase 75%. However, for the same period our imports have matched those exports so our yearly trade deficit today is little different than it was 10 years ago.

The only way we are going to significant reduce our trade deficit is by spending less and saving more. That will decrease domestic consumption and will make more capital available for expansion of industry to produce more exports. However, we don't need to do that and we shouldn't because it will bring on a recession or an economic slow down. There is nothing wrong with a trade deficit as long as it is not growing rapidly the way it was between 1990 and 2010.

Your point about increased exports is interesting.

But it does not seem to explain the results we see in the real world.


If exports are up, why are wages flat?


How can German car workers make so much? Is it just a coincidence that they have a large trade surplus? I don't think so.

In 2017 the US produced over 11 million cars, Germany only produced 5.6 million. Where did you get the incorrect idea they make twice as many as us?

How can Chinese car workers make so little? Is it just a coincidence they have a large trade surplus?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Correll]

Higher wages means more men being able to provide for their families, thus more families.


More families means more people with good, fulfilling lives, raising healthy and productive children.


More and wealthier families means less demand on social services.


more tax revenues.


less crime.


less drug use.


less illegitimacy (a nice reinforcing positive cycle there)


more money to spend on the more American products at the store.


It means a better society to live in.


If the cost is a slightly lower return on my mutual funds, I'm willing, no. I am EAGER to make that sacrifice.

Higher wages when there is shortage of workers means the employer must hire marginal workers, those he would not normally consider as they are generally less productive. When an employer must spend more on wages and without a corresponding increases in productivity then prices rise. Once the shortage of labor is resolved these employees will find themselves out of a job again.

As long as the number of open jobs are just a few million, employers will be able to find productive employees but when that figures goes to 20 or 30 million, then employers will be hiring low productivity workers and paying higher wages and will still have many millions of unfilled jobs. The result will be higher prices and lower quality and American will be unable to compete in foreign markets.

1. You did not at all address the positives of rising wages I listed above, nor offer any hint of your alternative to achieving a better society.

2. We are in and have been in for decades an artificial glut of labor, due to massive immigration, legal and illegal, and outsourcing. What we now consider a "shortage" could easily be a new normal of an American labor market dominated by AMERICAN LABOR.


3. We are not allowed to compete effectively now, for whatever reason as shown by our massive and ever growing trade deficits.

1. Rising wages are good for the economy as long as they are associated with higher productivity. Having to hire less productive workers at higher wages is bad as I mentioned above. The key to achieving a better society is better education. American needs to be the world leader in education. We were in the mid 20th century which was a key component in our economic growth. However, other nations caught up with with us and some surpassed us.

We have approximately four times the population of Germany, yet they produce twice as many cars as us, while their car manufacturing workers make twice as much.

German car workers are not twice as educated as ours, nor twice as productive.


I don't believe the evidence supports your claim that education is the answer.


And my list of the positives of higher wages, stands. It would be good for American society overall.

2. Over the last 4 years we have gone from a surplus in the labor market to a shortage of now over 6 million. With 19 million workers a day reaching 65 and the economy adding over 200,000 jobs a month, economists are projecting a 34 million employee shortage by 2024. Those new jobs are going to be filled by immigrants or they will go out the country. There is no other option.

Then let them go. America is more than just an economy. I would rather have a smaller nation, that is still America, than some bloated powerhouse that doesn't feel like home.

And I still want higher wages. We've accepted wage stagnation for far too long.

3. Our trade deficit is not do to our inability to compete. Our trade deficit is due to our high rate of spending (consumption). Our exports are increasing rapidly. Since 2008 our exports have increase 75%. However, for the same period our imports have matched those exports so our yearly trade deficit today is little different than it was 10 years ago.

The only way we are going to significant reduce our trade deficit is by spending less and saving more. That will decrease domestic consumption and will make more capital available for expansion of industry to produce more exports. However, we don't need to do that and we shouldn't because it will bring on a recession or an economic slow down. There is nothing wrong with a trade deficit as long as it is not growing rapidly the way it was between 1990 and 2010.

Your point about increased exports is interesting.

But it does not seem to explain the results we see in the real world.


If exports are up, why are wages flat?


How can German car workers make so much? Is it just a coincidence that they have a large trade surplus? I don't think so.

In 2017 the US produced over 11 million cars, Germany only produced 5.6 million. Where did you get the incorrect idea they make twice as many as us?

How can Chinese car workers make so little? Is it just a coincidence they have a large trade surplus?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much


"In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. "


Forbes seemed like a good source. If I was wrong, thank you for correctly me. LInk?



I dont' get your chinese car workers comment. Obviously low wages would be a factor to ENCOURAGE exports.


Yet, much higher wages don't seem to be a problem for Germany. Why do you think that is?