10 ms·

It's funny you mention Germany there at the end since it undermines your whole argument. German auto workers are all unionized and they earn double what America

by guelo 13y ago

It's funny you mention Germany there at the end since it undermines your whole argument. German auto workers are all unionized and they earn double what American auto workers do.

gnarbarian 13y ago
It doesn't undermine my argument. I said they compete on quality. Unions can be just as tyrannical as a monopoly. If German companies didn't produce better cars than cheaper countries there would be no reason to buy them and very few people would. Added to my above comment: "For clarification sake I'm saying that the mass of people at the bottom of an organization can have demands that conflict with the survival of the business. It's good that there are smart people who fought their way up the bureaucracy through a meritocracy. They generally won't make a decision that will obviously drive a company straight into the dirt while this is distinct risk in unions with entitlement issues."
- k__ 13y ago
  The problem with this is, that the demands, that can destroy a company, still can be real demands. The company says, it has to pay you $5 per hour or they couldn't employ you and it isn't even lying. You say, you can't work for a wage below $10 per hour and your reasons for this are valid, too. If the company wins, the workers can't live from their wage. If the workers win, the company can't employ enough of them to conduct business.
  - gnarbarian 13y ago
    I fail to see a problem with this at all. 1: The company goes out of business (due to inefficiency and an inability to compete) in which case it was a shitty business and shouldn't exist in the first place. 2: The company hires someone who can do the work for $5 per hour, in which case the worker who needs $10 to live is simply not living within their means. I equate this to someone earning minimum wage complaining that they can't support their numerous kids. NO SHIT. you are not entitled to a wage capable of supporting other people.
    - k__ 13y ago
      This is what seems logical, but most of the time the second thing will happen, because there are many people who think every job is better than no job. There are lesser jobs than people, so the companies have the bigger lever.
      - gnarbarian 13y ago
        If the employee possesses desirable skills that are in fact worth $10 they can seek that employment elsewhere. If they cannot offer anything over the $5 employee it's a waste to pay them more.
      - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
        Before there was minimum wage established in the US there was this job of pump attendant. Pump attendant was someone who would pump your gas into your car. These were jobs that paid next to nothing. These jobs disappeared almost immediately after the minimal wage law was enacted. Now, think about it. A 16-year old would come to the gas station after school and pump gas for (let's say) 2usd/hour. But he would also learn other skills. At that time there were also body shops/car mechanics at the gas station. Because they could use cheap 2usd/hr labor of this kid. And the kid could learn car mechanics. After finishing school the kid could be actually pretty good mechanic. Go there on the job market nad having this real-life experience demand 7usd/hr job of a car mechanic. That was also a time that unemployment rate among the young was the lowest out of all the age groups. Soon after the minimal wage law was enacted the unemployment rate among the young started to be the highest among all ages group. Not only that, but also there is no one to help you at the gas pump today in the US. There are no car mechanics at the gas stations too. These people are permanently unemployed. Because 16 year old after school isn't worth the current minimal wage. He's worth half of it. He could be worth the minimal wage enacted by the Government after 6 months experience while he would be paid market rate as gas pump attendant. But that's illegal now. It's illegal to hire him, pay him and let him grow to better position. He is permanently unemployed now. Maybe for years. Again, the unemployment rate among the young is the highest among all group ages. Before the minimal wage law it was the lowest. But socialism isn't about letting people who want to work, work. About letting them grow and prosper in their future. It is about permanent ruin. 60% of people below the age of 30 in Spain are unemployed. The country is doomed because of socialism. And doesn't even get it.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    > The company says, it has to pay you $5 per hour or they couldn't employ you and it isn't even lying. You say, you can't work for a wage below $10 per hour and your reasons for this are valid, too. The price of labor just like any other price in the free market economy is determined by supply & demand. So they need you for $5/hour. You know you are worth (i.e. can easily get) the same job for $10/hour. The capitalistic/free market way of this to work out is that you go working for 10usd/hour this way rewarding competent guys who can built cars with profit to pay you your rate and at the same time penalizing incompetent company that can't build cars with profit. At the end this means the incompetent company should go bankrupt and resources it was holding hostage - workers, machinery, real estate, steel that they used, etc, etc. can be bought on cheap via bankruptcy process by competent companies that will put all of that to better use. That's actually what should happen in 2008 with the banks. The incompetent banks that were lending all this risky money to guys without checking if they can ever repay, should go bankrupt - Citi, GoldMan, you name it. Then via baknruptcy process they would free up a lot of workforce, a lot of bank branches, office space, etc. to be bought by competent banks on the cheap (it's bankruptcy after all) and put it all to better use. 3/4th bank from Ohio - its CEO - knew about the housing bubble in advance. He was cautious. If we allowed the market forces to work he - a competent banker - would be the one who would buy on cheap / take over assets of incompetent morons like Paulson ex-CEO from Goldman. That's how free market economy works. This transition period - when people loose their jobs, etc due to incompetent morons CEOs - is horrible. But the things get reassigned and after some time people find work at competent banks that make sense. Instead, we got Paulson and other incompetent loosers convince the Government that they - incompetent CEOs - should be bailed out by tax-money. They told a few fairies about the end of the world that will happen for sure if they go bankrupt. The same was repeated by politicians and TV talking heads. And here we go - competent banker is taxed to pay to incompetent bankers do they can do the same mistakes all over again. Just one thing - please don't call this motrosity capitalism. It isn't.
    - gnarbarian 13y ago
      I call it corporate socialism.
      - 13y ago
philwelch 13y ago
German unions also own stock and sit on the board of their employers, which is the real difference. American unions are much more parasitic as they have zero vested interest in the hosts they infest.
- mrow84 13y ago
  Do the American unions eschew financial interests in their employers out of choice?
  - VLM 13y ago
    Well, the first problem is its not true, or at least badly out of date. The UAW is close to gaining control of Chrysler aka over 50% ownership. Sounds insane, yet its true. Also I think UAW is a hair under 20% stock ownership of GM at this time. Of course there are innumerable smaller unions who own no stock and pretty much have no assets on the balance sheet, which at least makes them judgment proof if nothing else. Another problems is the concept of the local electricians union owning stock in a sole proprietorship small industry where one union card carrying industrial maint electrician works part time, and spends the rest of this time freelancing at residential small jobs, doesn't even make sense. The fundamental problem is you really can't have two masters. So you work to optimize your stock profits; or employees? You might have to screw over some employees to boost the stock price to pay for health insurance for the retirees? So you want to move into Toyota plants but honestly, frankly, the best thing you could possibly do financially for your GM stock ownership would be to completely screw up the Toyota plant IF you moved in? Are you a non-diversified mutual fund representing the financial security of retirees, or a labor union representing the desires of the workers, or as a major owner you are by definition management representing the interests of management? If unions start owning lots of stock, who exactly is representing who and when? The game is a lot simpler if each player only has one master. You could probably make an interesting startup game and/or cardboard eurogame of the whole crazy situation where multiple player factions represent multiple other player factions but you never really know who's representing who at what time as the game progresses.
    - 13y ago

by guelo 13y ago

It's funny you mention Germany there at the end since it undermines your whole argument. German auto workers are all unionized and they earn double what American auto workers do.

gnarbarian 13y ago

It doesn't undermine my argument. I said they compete on quality. Unions can be just as tyrannical as a monopoly. If German companies didn't produce better cars than cheaper countries there would be no reason to buy them and very few people would. Added to my above comment: "For clarification sake I'm saying that the mass of people at the bottom of an organization can have demands that conflict with the survival of the business. It's good that there are smart people who fought their way up the bureaucracy through a meritocracy. They generally won't make a decision that will obviously drive a company straight into the dirt while this is distinct risk in unions with entitlement issues."

k__ 13y ago
The problem with this is, that the demands, that can destroy a company, still can be real demands. The company says, it has to pay you $5 per hour or they couldn't employ you and it isn't even lying. You say, you can't work for a wage below $10 per hour and your reasons for this are valid, too. If the company wins, the workers can't live from their wage. If the workers win, the company can't employ enough of them to conduct business.
- gnarbarian 13y ago
  I fail to see a problem with this at all. 1: The company goes out of business (due to inefficiency and an inability to compete) in which case it was a shitty business and shouldn't exist in the first place. 2: The company hires someone who can do the work for $5 per hour, in which case the worker who needs $10 to live is simply not living within their means. I equate this to someone earning minimum wage complaining that they can't support their numerous kids. NO SHIT. you are not entitled to a wage capable of supporting other people.
  - k__ 13y ago
    This is what seems logical, but most of the time the second thing will happen, because there are many people who think every job is better than no job. There are lesser jobs than people, so the companies have the bigger lever.
    - gnarbarian 13y ago
      If the employee possesses desirable skills that are in fact worth $10 they can seek that employment elsewhere. If they cannot offer anything over the $5 employee it's a waste to pay them more.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      Before there was minimum wage established in the US there was this job of pump attendant. Pump attendant was someone who would pump your gas into your car. These were jobs that paid next to nothing. These jobs disappeared almost immediately after the minimal wage law was enacted. Now, think about it. A 16-year old would come to the gas station after school and pump gas for (let's say) 2usd/hour. But he would also learn other skills. At that time there were also body shops/car mechanics at the gas station. Because they could use cheap 2usd/hr labor of this kid. And the kid could learn car mechanics. After finishing school the kid could be actually pretty good mechanic. Go there on the job market nad having this real-life experience demand 7usd/hr job of a car mechanic. That was also a time that unemployment rate among the young was the lowest out of all the age groups. Soon after the minimal wage law was enacted the unemployment rate among the young started to be the highest among all ages group. Not only that, but also there is no one to help you at the gas pump today in the US. There are no car mechanics at the gas stations too. These people are permanently unemployed. Because 16 year old after school isn't worth the current minimal wage. He's worth half of it. He could be worth the minimal wage enacted by the Government after 6 months experience while he would be paid market rate as gas pump attendant. But that's illegal now. It's illegal to hire him, pay him and let him grow to better position. He is permanently unemployed now. Maybe for years. Again, the unemployment rate among the young is the highest among all group ages. Before the minimal wage law it was the lowest. But socialism isn't about letting people who want to work, work. About letting them grow and prosper in their future. It is about permanent ruin. 60% of people below the age of 30 in Spain are unemployed. The country is doomed because of socialism. And doesn't even get it.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  > The company says, it has to pay you $5 per hour or they couldn't employ you and it isn't even lying. You say, you can't work for a wage below $10 per hour and your reasons for this are valid, too. The price of labor just like any other price in the free market economy is determined by supply & demand. So they need you for $5/hour. You know you are worth (i.e. can easily get) the same job for $10/hour. The capitalistic/free market way of this to work out is that you go working for 10usd/hour this way rewarding competent guys who can built cars with profit to pay you your rate and at the same time penalizing incompetent company that can't build cars with profit. At the end this means the incompetent company should go bankrupt and resources it was holding hostage - workers, machinery, real estate, steel that they used, etc, etc. can be bought on cheap via bankruptcy process by competent companies that will put all of that to better use. That's actually what should happen in 2008 with the banks. The incompetent banks that were lending all this risky money to guys without checking if they can ever repay, should go bankrupt - Citi, GoldMan, you name it. Then via baknruptcy process they would free up a lot of workforce, a lot of bank branches, office space, etc. to be bought by competent banks on the cheap (it's bankruptcy after all) and put it all to better use. 3/4th bank from Ohio - its CEO - knew about the housing bubble in advance. He was cautious. If we allowed the market forces to work he - a competent banker - would be the one who would buy on cheap / take over assets of incompetent morons like Paulson ex-CEO from Goldman. That's how free market economy works. This transition period - when people loose their jobs, etc due to incompetent morons CEOs - is horrible. But the things get reassigned and after some time people find work at competent banks that make sense. Instead, we got Paulson and other incompetent loosers convince the Government that they - incompetent CEOs - should be bailed out by tax-money. They told a few fairies about the end of the world that will happen for sure if they go bankrupt. The same was repeated by politicians and TV talking heads. And here we go - competent banker is taxed to pay to incompetent bankers do they can do the same mistakes all over again. Just one thing - please don't call this motrosity capitalism. It isn't.
  - gnarbarian 13y ago
    I call it corporate socialism.
    - 13y ago

philwelch 13y ago

German unions also own stock and sit on the board of their employers, which is the real difference. American unions are much more parasitic as they have zero vested interest in the hosts they infest.

mrow84 13y ago
Do the American unions eschew financial interests in their employers out of choice?
- VLM 13y ago
  Well, the first problem is its not true, or at least badly out of date. The UAW is close to gaining control of Chrysler aka over 50% ownership. Sounds insane, yet its true. Also I think UAW is a hair under 20% stock ownership of GM at this time. Of course there are innumerable smaller unions who own no stock and pretty much have no assets on the balance sheet, which at least makes them judgment proof if nothing else. Another problems is the concept of the local electricians union owning stock in a sole proprietorship small industry where one union card carrying industrial maint electrician works part time, and spends the rest of this time freelancing at residential small jobs, doesn't even make sense. The fundamental problem is you really can't have two masters. So you work to optimize your stock profits; or employees? You might have to screw over some employees to boost the stock price to pay for health insurance for the retirees? So you want to move into Toyota plants but honestly, frankly, the best thing you could possibly do financially for your GM stock ownership would be to completely screw up the Toyota plant IF you moved in? Are you a non-diversified mutual fund representing the financial security of retirees, or a labor union representing the desires of the workers, or as a major owner you are by definition management representing the interests of management? If unions start owning lots of stock, who exactly is representing who and when? The game is a lot simpler if each player only has one master. You could probably make an interesting startup game and/or cardboard eurogame of the whole crazy situation where multiple player factions represent multiple other player factions but you never really know who's representing who at what time as the game progresses.
  - 13y ago