6 ms·

Those Pensions and Wages were not sustainable. The Average American is not working at Star Bucks parttime. Even if things are made in America and cleanly they'

Those Pensions and Wages were not sustainable. The Average American is not working at Star Bucks parttime. Even if things are made in America and cleanly they'll be made by machines, not meat. And crushed under not only 'Clean' regulations but Safety and other Quality standards that will drive prices of goods up. Not everyone will be able to secure these new Manufacturing jobs you want. So how will your person still stuck at Starbucks be able to afford them?

ced 9y ago
> Those Pensions and Wages were not sustainable. Why were the wages not sustainable?
- adventured 9y ago
  Because the US had around 55% of all global manufacturing circa 1970 (with 130 million fewer people), due to its temporary quasi economic monopoly status after WW2 as the last highly developed industrial economy left standing. That's why real US wages, stand-alone, have barely climbed in 40 years. Consider for a moment just how extremely high those wages were in ~1970, that it took decades for other high development nations to catch up. That and the fact that healthcare costs over that time have soared in the US, so a big part of US compensation increases since 1970, have gone to employee health insurance costs (commonly anywhere from 10% to 30% of a person's compensation if you're near or above the median).
astrodust 9y ago
> Those Pensions and Wages were not sustainable. Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Productivity has continued to rise since the 1970s and yet wages are pretty much flat. That is: People are producing more value for their employers than ever before, but aren't being paid accordingly. These wages are only "not sustainable" if you think corporations are entitled to cut costs, squeeze employees, and slash benefits all in the name of squeaking out ever increasing returns for shareholders or to pad out their own exorbinant executive salaries. If anything's not sustainable it's current executive pay levels.
- krapp 9y ago
  >(...) if you think corporations are entitled to cut costs, squeeze employees, and slash benefits all in the name of squeaking out ever increasing returns for shareholders or to pad out their own exorbinant executive salaries. That's literally the reason most corporations exist, so yes they are entitled to do exactly that, to whatever degree the law and market allows.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    The reason corporations exist is to protect investors, not make them rich. A "limited liability corporation" made it advantageous for people to take more risks than they usually would by giving them a guarantee they wouldn't lose everything they own if the venture failed. That isn't possible in a partnership or sole-proprietorship. In those if your idea tanks, you go down with the ship. The type of thinking you're espousing is the sort that bubbled to the surface in the 1980s where profit drove all decisions. No longer was there concern for the welfare of workers, for the long-term survival of the company, or anything, absolutely anything at all, other than making shareholders happy. Companies never succeed by simply making profits. They succeed by making good products. Then they're acquired by hedge funds that squeeze them for every ounce of profit they're good for and sell the remaining husk for pennies on the dollar.
- dugditches 9y ago
  Cut the pay of the few Executives and divide it among all the other 100's of employees. Will that bring the employees wages up to the right levels? It's not necessarily the People but the machines/equipment they operate that are generating the 'more value' you speak of. The employees do not pay for this equipment and its maintenance. The Company does. While it used to take 3 men 30 minutes to make a batch of ingredients with shovels and wheelbarrows, it now takes 1 Operator 30 seconds to push a button on an automated transfer system and watch it work. That one Operator is now producing 'more value' than his 3 predecessors. The lone Operator can now make 10 more batches a shift than 3 could before. Should he be paid accordingly for pushing a button versus the hard labor of 3 men? I think the fact it's happening/has happened is 'bullshit' and that it's not 'right'. But the heavily automated jobs we have today aren't the same hard manual labor ones of the past. Large North American Manufacturers have to 'cut costs' to compete with offshore production, stay within strict Gov't Regulations, and survive(thus keeping jobs).

ced 9y ago

> Those Pensions and Wages were not sustainable. Why were the wages not sustainable?

adventured 9y ago
Because the US had around 55% of all global manufacturing circa 1970 (with 130 million fewer people), due to its temporary quasi economic monopoly status after WW2 as the last highly developed industrial economy left standing. That's why real US wages, stand-alone, have barely climbed in 40 years. Consider for a moment just how extremely high those wages were in ~1970, that it took decades for other high development nations to catch up. That and the fact that healthcare costs over that time have soared in the US, so a big part of US compensation increases since 1970, have gone to employee health insurance costs (commonly anywhere from 10% to 30% of a person's compensation if you're near or above the median).

astrodust 9y ago

> Those Pensions and Wages were not sustainable. Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Productivity has continued to rise since the 1970s and yet wages are pretty much flat. That is: People are producing more value for their employers than ever before, but aren't being paid accordingly. These wages are only "not sustainable" if you think corporations are entitled to cut costs, squeeze employees, and slash benefits all in the name of squeaking out ever increasing returns for shareholders or to pad out their own exorbinant executive salaries. If anything's not sustainable it's current executive pay levels.

krapp 9y ago
>(...) if you think corporations are entitled to cut costs, squeeze employees, and slash benefits all in the name of squeaking out ever increasing returns for shareholders or to pad out their own exorbinant executive salaries. That's literally the reason most corporations exist, so yes they are entitled to do exactly that, to whatever degree the law and market allows.
- astrodust 9y ago
  The reason corporations exist is to protect investors, not make them rich. A "limited liability corporation" made it advantageous for people to take more risks than they usually would by giving them a guarantee they wouldn't lose everything they own if the venture failed. That isn't possible in a partnership or sole-proprietorship. In those if your idea tanks, you go down with the ship. The type of thinking you're espousing is the sort that bubbled to the surface in the 1980s where profit drove all decisions. No longer was there concern for the welfare of workers, for the long-term survival of the company, or anything, absolutely anything at all, other than making shareholders happy. Companies never succeed by simply making profits. They succeed by making good products. Then they're acquired by hedge funds that squeeze them for every ounce of profit they're good for and sell the remaining husk for pennies on the dollar.
dugditches 9y ago
Cut the pay of the few Executives and divide it among all the other 100's of employees. Will that bring the employees wages up to the right levels? It's not necessarily the People but the machines/equipment they operate that are generating the 'more value' you speak of. The employees do not pay for this equipment and its maintenance. The Company does. While it used to take 3 men 30 minutes to make a batch of ingredients with shovels and wheelbarrows, it now takes 1 Operator 30 seconds to push a button on an automated transfer system and watch it work. That one Operator is now producing 'more value' than his 3 predecessors. The lone Operator can now make 10 more batches a shift than 3 could before. Should he be paid accordingly for pushing a button versus the hard labor of 3 men? I think the fact it's happening/has happened is 'bullshit' and that it's not 'right'. But the heavily automated jobs we have today aren't the same hard manual labor ones of the past. Large North American Manufacturers have to 'cut costs' to compete with offshore production, stay within strict Gov't Regulations, and survive(thus keeping jobs).