4 ms·
>It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetlin
by thethethethe 7y ago
>It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner.
This is a terrible strawman. One could easily argue that Boeing should pay their employees enough so they could afford plane tickets to fly in Boeing jets. Comparing a commodity product to a commercial product like this article does is narrow and silly.
- mcguire 7y agoWell, it is Forbes.
- ChrisSD 7y agoTo be clear, this is not Forbes. This is forbes.com/sites/ which is an unedited blogging network. So long as a blog brings in clicks and doesn't cause problems for Forbes then they don't much care what is posted.
- baddox 7y agoIt's not unreasonable to expect Forbes' editorial control to extend to everything they host on their domain.
- xyzzyz 7y agoIf it's at forbes.com, and has Forbes logo at the top, it's Forbes. If they don't like the brand damage this is creating, tough luck: they can't have their cake and eat it too.
- maxerickson 7y agoForbes, the blog farm that used to be a magazine.
- DiabloD3 7y agoForbes died the moment Forbes himself died. This was in 1954. Forbes, the magazine, has been going down hill since then, and most of us have only been alive for around half that time.
- Tallasatree 7y agoName checks out.
- stale2002 7y agoNo, you are missing the point. The point is that the amount of money that your workers are making, does not have any significant effect on the demand side of who buys your product. If your workers make up ~1% of your customers, then them making more money to buy you product, could only really make you around 1% more money. The argument is just completely nonsensical, that you could spend 100$ increasing a worker's wages, and that is somehow going to get you that 100$ back, because they buy your product. Instead, you are only going to making back, like 1$ (Because they are less than 1% of your customers). It is an obviously false argument, that becomes apparently if you even do any back of the envelope math at all. And this is without even taking into account things like revenue vs profit. IE, even if the workers give you back all the money, the materials of the car make up a significant percentage. So, if you pay someone 100$, they give it back to you, you now have to spend 60$ on materials, and you now only have 40$ left.... so you are down 60$.
- worik 7y agoThis misses the point. "The point is that the amount of money that your workers are making, does not have any significant effect on the demand side of who buys your product." This is a class issue. I imagine Henry knew that. Workers must be paid well. All workers. Or the ruling class (Henry's class) will wither and die. This is a point the current ruling class has forgotten
- ncmncm 7y agoNo. He had to pay more than other employers to retain employees. Once all workers are paid well, he has to pay better than them. It has nothing to do with any desire to protect his own class. The line about wanting his employees to buy cars is obvious propaganda, but hard to argue with lacking the truth it was meant to distract us from. The truth was not obvious, but required more facts, which the author supplied. So, now we are equipped to put Ford's line to bed: he had no particular desire for his workers to live well, but did need them to stay on the line.