|
if people do not think that the overwhelming characteristic of a propertarian system is hierarchy and power relations, then seriously the education system isn't doing its job teaching the kids the history of and structure of their own society.
This is correct,
if people do not think that the overwhelming characteristic of the human experience is hierarchy and power relations, then seriously the education system isn't doing its job teaching the kids the history of and structure of every society in history
honestly talking about "hierarchy and power relations" as if they are exclusive to a "propertarian system" or any particular kind of system rather than universal characteristics of human social behavior and structures, what is going on here
live in a cave by yourself, you'll be in a system without hierarchy and the only power relations you'll have will be with the lions and tigers and bears oh my
if you want to live with other people around, you're just going to have to bite the bullet and deal with those pesky hierarchies and power relations
|
On October 11 2011 13:02 Stirbend wrote:
As far as Nuclear power goes, i'll just say that most of the energy we use here comes from nuclear power plants
19.6% of our electricity generation was nuclear energy in 2008, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
|
On October 11 2011 13:06 AmishNukes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 12:53 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports. Both of these points are completely incorrect, I'm sorry. Unions were essential at the turn of the century because workers were taken advantage of and had no access to representation. If you required more than your employer was willing to give, barring unreasonableness, there were hundreds of unemployed waiting in line for the sub-par job you had (much like today). Secondly, unions are completely self-sufficient. Not only are they not a drain on anyone who is not a member, they are actually for-profit and pay federal income taxes. You pay weekly dues for representation, regulation, and often a fair, higher-than-market wage to account for those costs. You clearly don't understand that union workers get compensation greater than non-union workers in similar positions at companies without unions even though they are not anymore profitable to the companies that employ them. That is the cost he is referring to, the increased cost of goods and services and the export of jobs to foreign countries. Government protections on workers protect those that still have jobs but lead to an increase in layoffs and overseas jobs. The hundreds in the unemployment line are why you do not deserve any more money or increased benefits.
No, you clearly don't understand that a higher wage paid for by the company itself does not, in any way, equal a tax on everyone not in a union. Jobs were shipped overseas because it was fiscally beneficial to those at the top. They would have done it no matter what because they were allowed to.
In the same respect, would you say the federal minimum wage is a tax on everyone? It's clearly more the culprit for jobs being shipped overseas than union respresentation.
|
maybe he's from france...
wait no he isn't. =(
US has pretty much said nothx to nuclear power since Three Mile Island and especially since Chernobyl
|
On October 11 2011 12:53 Hamski wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports. Both of these points are completely incorrect, I'm sorry. Unions were essential at the turn of the century because workers were taken advantage of and had no access to representation. If you required more than your employer was willing to give, barring unreasonableness, there were hundreds of unemployed waiting in line for the sub-par job you had (much like today). Secondly, unions are completely self-sufficient. Not only are they not a drain on anyone who is not a member, they are actually for-profit and pay federal income taxes. You pay weekly dues for representation, regulation, and often a fair, higher-than-market wage to account for those costs.
Ok well you just agreed with me on number one. Not sure what your point is. I agree that they were useful when employees had no mobility. My point was that labor mobility has made this need insignificant. Don't like the closest employer? Go somewhere else.
If a company has to pay its employees a higher-than-market wage then they must increase their prices. That hurts the rest of us. It's simple economics. Higher costs equal higher prices for the rest of us.
|
Out of context much?
"As far as Nuclear power goes, i'll just say that most of the energy we use here comes from nuclear power plants, and we have some of the lowest power costs in the USA."
This, to me at least, makes it pretty clear i'm talking about my area. Which comes from 2 plants. One being nuclear, the other being a dam. With plans to bring a second nuclear plant on sometime in the future.
|
On October 11 2011 13:20 Stirbend wrote:Out of context much?
Care to elaborate? You said most of our energy we use comes from nuclear energy, and I know that 19.6% number is from 2008 but did it jump up to "most" in the last couple years? I actually have no horse in this race, if that number is wrong I'll be fine with it 
Or maybe you are actually from another country, but it says United States next to your name.
edit: aha! I see you meant in your area, as I saw in your edit. The wording wasn't particularly clear to me, but now I see what you were saying. Just a misunderstanding, that's cool. :D
|
On October 11 2011 13:20 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 12:53 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports. Both of these points are completely incorrect, I'm sorry. Unions were essential at the turn of the century because workers were taken advantage of and had no access to representation. If you required more than your employer was willing to give, barring unreasonableness, there were hundreds of unemployed waiting in line for the sub-par job you had (much like today). Secondly, unions are completely self-sufficient. Not only are they not a drain on anyone who is not a member, they are actually for-profit and pay federal income taxes. You pay weekly dues for representation, regulation, and often a fair, higher-than-market wage to account for those costs. Ok well you just agreed with me on number one. Not sure what your point is. I agree that they were useful when employees had no mobility. My point was that labor mobility has made this need insignificant. Don't like the closest employer? Go somewhere else. If a company has to pay its employees a higher-than-market wage then they must increase their prices. That hurts the rest of us. It's simple economics. Higher costs equal higher prices for the rest of us.
1. Look inside the quotes of my first paragraph. I actually completely disagreed with you.
2. If a company CHOOSES to pay their employees higher-than-market wages or benefits they benefit from higher employee satisfaction, less turnaround, and increased productivity. Less expenses from training and delays and higher productivity can offset wage costs very easily. Ever heard of Ford Motor Company? 1914, they paid twice their competitor's wages and grew 300% in the three years following. You should read up on it sometime.
|
On October 11 2011 13:02 Stirbend wrote:
As far as Nuclear power goes, i'll just say that most of the energy we use here comes from nuclear power plants, and we have some of the lowest power costs in the USA. Nuclear is renewable, and cheap. I really couldn't care less about costs for nuclear energy from a country thats regulating the crap out of it to keep it from popping up.
Where did you get the idea that nuclear power was cheap?
|
United States98 Posts
On October 11 2011 13:30 Hamski wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 13:20 CatharsisUT wrote:On October 11 2011 12:53 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports. Both of these points are completely incorrect, I'm sorry. Unions were essential at the turn of the century because workers were taken advantage of and had no access to representation. If you required more than your employer was willing to give, barring unreasonableness, there were hundreds of unemployed waiting in line for the sub-par job you had (much like today). Secondly, unions are completely self-sufficient. Not only are they not a drain on anyone who is not a member, they are actually for-profit and pay federal income taxes. You pay weekly dues for representation, regulation, and often a fair, higher-than-market wage to account for those costs. Ok well you just agreed with me on number one. Not sure what your point is. I agree that they were useful when employees had no mobility. My point was that labor mobility has made this need insignificant. Don't like the closest employer? Go somewhere else. If a company has to pay its employees a higher-than-market wage then they must increase their prices. That hurts the rest of us. It's simple economics. Higher costs equal higher prices for the rest of us. 1. Look inside the quotes of my first paragraph. I actually completely disagreed with you. 2. If a company CHOOSES to pay their employees higher-than-market wages or benefits they benefit from higher employee satisfaction, less turnaround, and increased productivity. Less expenses from training and delays and higher productivity can offset wage costs very easily. Ever heard of Ford Motor Company? 1914, they paid twice their competitor's wages and grew 300% in the three years following. You should read up on it sometime.
One situation where paying higher wages led to better growth does not make a case. Nor am I saying it's not a sound idea. But I'm going to guess they could fire someone in 1914 for being a lackluster employee and replace them with someone who would earn that higher wage. Corporations don't have that luxury anymore. You can't fire someone without a lawsuit unless you can easily prove they intentionally did something to harm the company. If your case isn't clear-cut, the litigation isn't worth replacing them.
EDIT: I think it's safe to say that most business examples from nearly 100 years ago have very little to do with today's businesses. So I'm not sure whether this one actually applies today. There are so many more variables involved than just higher wages and business growth.
|
United States98 Posts
On October 11 2011 13:48 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 13:02 Stirbend wrote:
As far as Nuclear power goes, i'll just say that most of the energy we use here comes from nuclear power plants, and we have some of the lowest power costs in the USA. Nuclear is renewable, and cheap. I really couldn't care less about costs for nuclear energy from a country thats regulating the crap out of it to keep it from popping up. Where did you get the idea that nuclear power was cheap?
He's actually right about nuclear power being low-cost. The issue is that it has extremely high upfront capital requirements.
http://nuclearfissionary.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/total-cost-electricity-production-per-kwh.jpg
This graph is from: http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
This is clearly a pro nuclear site so they may devalue the cost of decommishing but the per kwh production numbers are in line with many others I have seen so I'm not looking for another source at 1 am. These are good enough for the point: once you have nuclear it is cheap.
They also have per kwh)
Nuclear: $0.019
Coal: $0.027
Natural Gas: $0.081
Wind:$0.030
Hydroelectric: $0.009
Solar: No estimate found
|
On October 11 2011 13:51 AmishNukes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 13:30 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 13:20 CatharsisUT wrote:On October 11 2011 12:53 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports. Both of these points are completely incorrect, I'm sorry. Unions were essential at the turn of the century because workers were taken advantage of and had no access to representation. If you required more than your employer was willing to give, barring unreasonableness, there were hundreds of unemployed waiting in line for the sub-par job you had (much like today). Secondly, unions are completely self-sufficient. Not only are they not a drain on anyone who is not a member, they are actually for-profit and pay federal income taxes. You pay weekly dues for representation, regulation, and often a fair, higher-than-market wage to account for those costs. Ok well you just agreed with me on number one. Not sure what your point is. I agree that they were useful when employees had no mobility. My point was that labor mobility has made this need insignificant. Don't like the closest employer? Go somewhere else. If a company has to pay its employees a higher-than-market wage then they must increase their prices. That hurts the rest of us. It's simple economics. Higher costs equal higher prices for the rest of us. 1. Look inside the quotes of my first paragraph. I actually completely disagreed with you. 2. If a company CHOOSES to pay their employees higher-than-market wages or benefits they benefit from higher employee satisfaction, less turnaround, and increased productivity. Less expenses from training and delays and higher productivity can offset wage costs very easily. Ever heard of Ford Motor Company? 1914, they paid twice their competitor's wages and grew 300% in the three years following. You should read up on it sometime. One situation where paying higher wages led to better growth does not make a case. Nor am I saying it's not a sound idea. But I'm going to guess they could fire someone in 1914 for being a lackluster employee and replace them with someone who would earn that higher wage. Corporations don't have that luxury anymore. You can't fire someone without a lawsuit unless you can easily prove they intentionally did something to harm the company. If your case isn't clear-cut, the litigation isn't worth replacing them.
I used a more extreme reference for your sake. Maybe I should've used Comcast? Google? Either way, I have yet to see anyone claim paying the majority of their staff a little more than their competitors actually hurt their profits.
Corporations these days fire whoever they want. I assume by lawsuit you mean unemployment hearings, which if you have no reason to fire said employee, you should be paying it. God forbid businesses have to obey laws these days. If you do have grounds for termination, then you'll be glad to hear a normal hearing around here only takes an hour and a half. I suppose you'll be glad to hear that it usually doesn't even make it that far because that employee is going to be fired before his probationary period is up whether he worked well or not to save costs on providing benefits. Apparently it's relatively cheaper to train someone knew and work them for 90 days than it is to keep someone around full-time.
|
On October 11 2011 13:59 AmishNukes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 13:48 Mindcrime wrote:On October 11 2011 13:02 Stirbend wrote:
As far as Nuclear power goes, i'll just say that most of the energy we use here comes from nuclear power plants, and we have some of the lowest power costs in the USA. Nuclear is renewable, and cheap. I really couldn't care less about costs for nuclear energy from a country thats regulating the crap out of it to keep it from popping up. Where did you get the idea that nuclear power was cheap? He's actually right about nuclear power being low-cost. The issue is that it has extremely high upfront capital requirements. http://nuclearfissionary.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/total-cost-electricity-production-per-kwh.jpgThis graph is from: http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/This is clearly a pro nuclear site so they may devalue the cost of decommishing but the per kwh production numbers are in line with many others I have seen so I'm not looking for another source at 1 am. These are good enough for the point: once you have nuclear it is cheap. They also have per kwh) Nuclear: $0.019 Coal: $0.027 Natural Gas: $0.081 Wind:$0.030 Hydroelectric: $0.009 Solar: No estimate found
Yeah, once you have the massive government subsidies, limited liability and an already operating plant it's cheap.
:|
|
United States98 Posts
On October 11 2011 14:04 Hamski wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 13:51 AmishNukes wrote:On October 11 2011 13:30 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 13:20 CatharsisUT wrote:On October 11 2011 12:53 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports. Both of these points are completely incorrect, I'm sorry. Unions were essential at the turn of the century because workers were taken advantage of and had no access to representation. If you required more than your employer was willing to give, barring unreasonableness, there were hundreds of unemployed waiting in line for the sub-par job you had (much like today). Secondly, unions are completely self-sufficient. Not only are they not a drain on anyone who is not a member, they are actually for-profit and pay federal income taxes. You pay weekly dues for representation, regulation, and often a fair, higher-than-market wage to account for those costs. Ok well you just agreed with me on number one. Not sure what your point is. I agree that they were useful when employees had no mobility. My point was that labor mobility has made this need insignificant. Don't like the closest employer? Go somewhere else. If a company has to pay its employees a higher-than-market wage then they must increase their prices. That hurts the rest of us. It's simple economics. Higher costs equal higher prices for the rest of us. 1. Look inside the quotes of my first paragraph. I actually completely disagreed with you. 2. If a company CHOOSES to pay their employees higher-than-market wages or benefits they benefit from higher employee satisfaction, less turnaround, and increased productivity. Less expenses from training and delays and higher productivity can offset wage costs very easily. Ever heard of Ford Motor Company? 1914, they paid twice their competitor's wages and grew 300% in the three years following. You should read up on it sometime. One situation where paying higher wages led to better growth does not make a case. Nor am I saying it's not a sound idea. But I'm going to guess they could fire someone in 1914 for being a lackluster employee and replace them with someone who would earn that higher wage. Corporations don't have that luxury anymore. You can't fire someone without a lawsuit unless you can easily prove they intentionally did something to harm the company. If your case isn't clear-cut, the litigation isn't worth replacing them. I used a more extreme reference for your sake. Maybe I should've used Comcast? Google? Either way, I have yet to see anyone claim paying the majority of their staff a little more than their competitors actually hurt their profits. Corporations these days fire whoever they want. I assume by lawsuit you mean unemployment hearings, which if you have no reason to fire said employee, you should be paying it. God forbid businesses have to obey laws these days. If you do have grounds for termination, then you'll be glad to hear a normal hearing around here only takes an hour and a half. I suppose you'll be glad to hear that it usually doesn't even make it that far because that employee is going to be fired before his probationary period is up whether he worked well or not to save costs on providing benefits. Apparently it's relatively cheaper to train someone knew and work them for 90 days than it is to keep someone around full-time.
Why should a company have to pay someone they fired? They aren't responsible for employing you. You say, god forbid they have to obey laws. I'm saying those laws are invalid in the first place. Every employment contract should be between employee and employer. If you want better protections against being layed-off or fired find a different employer. If I want a higher wage with no guarantees that's my prerogative. The way things are today, everything you buy or sell, including your labor, is a transaction between you, the other party, and the government. I don't just mean taxes. The government's overzealous protections keep people from being employed.
NOTE: Some government regulations are necessary to protect us from risks we cannot properly assess ourselves but many of the governments regulations should be up to the parties involved to decide. Those that can't make the correct decisions for themselves should live with their mistakes even to the extent of poverty supported by minimalistic welfare systems.
|
On October 11 2011 13:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
if people do not think that the overwhelming characteristic of a propertarian system is hierarchy and power relations, then seriously the education system isn't doing its job teaching the kids the history of and structure of their own society.
if people do not think that the overwhelming characteristic of the human experience is hierarchy and power relations, then seriously the education system isn't doing its job teaching the kids the history of and structure of every society in history honestly talking about "hierarchy and power relations" as if they are exclusive to a "propertarian system" or any particular kind of system rather than universal characteristics of human social behavior and structures, what is going on here live in a cave by yourself, you'll be in a system without hierarchy and the only power relations you'll have will be with the lions and tigers and bears oh my if you want to live with other people around, you're just going to have to bite the bullet and deal with those pesky hierarchies and power relations
Excellent point deepelem, and well said.
We must ask ourselves whether we would prefer to be guided by a system of voluntary exchange and economic necessity, or to be commanded by men under the threat of physical violence and imprisonment. A society which does not respect the individual's right to property has complete ownership of an individual's food, shelter, health, career, etc, and therefore owns and controls the individual's life.
The key to reducing the abuse of power in the world is to diminish the power of each entity, to break powerful organizations apart, to create competing corporations, competing branches of government, checks and balances. You won't reduce the abuse of power by centralizing all economic control and hoping they rule in a benevolent fashion.
|
On October 11 2011 12:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Society is undemocratic because you don't have any kind of say in what happens at your job. You can only choose to go to a different undemocratic setup. Same with the financial institutions. Same with the media. They are all owned, top down, undemocratic setups. Ask anyone who works at 99% of jobs in "capitalist" countries. They are Totalitarian in organization. Though your LOLOL arguments are great- but democracy is an idea that can be applied to more than a political system. Sorry but no. You agree to abide by your boss's say-so when you show up to work. You don't like it, don't work there. Your boss cannot compel you to work. The same as you cannot compel him to pay you if you don't work. The idea that a society is undemocratic because businesses are mostly run on a hierarchical model is just silly, really really really silly. Especially our society, honestly do you really think your boss being able to tell you to do stuff outweighs all the other democratic aspects of our society? You're stretching the rubber band until it breaks here, and yes my lololol arguments were great because what you're saying is ludicrous. It's half-baked political theorizing.
That's fair. If you think, in the United States, you're living in a society that is controlled in most aspects by public consensus, that is fine. In fact, most people think that and I think most people would agree with you. Nothing that matters is controlled by vote or popular determination. Some people never notice.
|
On October 11 2011 14:26 AmishNukes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 14:04 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 13:51 AmishNukes wrote:On October 11 2011 13:30 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 13:20 CatharsisUT wrote:On October 11 2011 12:53 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports. Both of these points are completely incorrect, I'm sorry. Unions were essential at the turn of the century because workers were taken advantage of and had no access to representation. If you required more than your employer was willing to give, barring unreasonableness, there were hundreds of unemployed waiting in line for the sub-par job you had (much like today). Secondly, unions are completely self-sufficient. Not only are they not a drain on anyone who is not a member, they are actually for-profit and pay federal income taxes. You pay weekly dues for representation, regulation, and often a fair, higher-than-market wage to account for those costs. Ok well you just agreed with me on number one. Not sure what your point is. I agree that they were useful when employees had no mobility. My point was that labor mobility has made this need insignificant. Don't like the closest employer? Go somewhere else. If a company has to pay its employees a higher-than-market wage then they must increase their prices. That hurts the rest of us. It's simple economics. Higher costs equal higher prices for the rest of us. 1. Look inside the quotes of my first paragraph. I actually completely disagreed with you. 2. If a company CHOOSES to pay their employees higher-than-market wages or benefits they benefit from higher employee satisfaction, less turnaround, and increased productivity. Less expenses from training and delays and higher productivity can offset wage costs very easily. Ever heard of Ford Motor Company? 1914, they paid twice their competitor's wages and grew 300% in the three years following. You should read up on it sometime. One situation where paying higher wages led to better growth does not make a case. Nor am I saying it's not a sound idea. But I'm going to guess they could fire someone in 1914 for being a lackluster employee and replace them with someone who would earn that higher wage. Corporations don't have that luxury anymore. You can't fire someone without a lawsuit unless you can easily prove they intentionally did something to harm the company. If your case isn't clear-cut, the litigation isn't worth replacing them. I used a more extreme reference for your sake. Maybe I should've used Comcast? Google? Either way, I have yet to see anyone claim paying the majority of their staff a little more than their competitors actually hurt their profits. Corporations these days fire whoever they want. I assume by lawsuit you mean unemployment hearings, which if you have no reason to fire said employee, you should be paying it. God forbid businesses have to obey laws these days. If you do have grounds for termination, then you'll be glad to hear a normal hearing around here only takes an hour and a half. I suppose you'll be glad to hear that it usually doesn't even make it that far because that employee is going to be fired before his probationary period is up whether he worked well or not to save costs on providing benefits. Apparently it's relatively cheaper to train someone knew and work them for 90 days than it is to keep someone around full-time. Why should a company have to pay someone they fired? They aren't responsible for employing you. You say, god forbid they have to obey laws. I'm saying those laws are invalid in the first place. Every employment contract should be between employee and employer. If you want better protections against being layed-off or fired find a different employer. If I want a higher wage with no guarantees that's my prerogative. The way things are today, everything you buy or sell, including your labor, is a transaction between you, the other party, and the government. I don't just mean taxes. The government's overzealous protections keep people from being employed. NOTE: Some government regulations are necessary to protect us from risks we cannot properly assess ourselves but many of the governments regulations should be up to the parties involved to decide. Those that can't make the correct decisions for themselves should live with their mistakes even to the extent of poverty supported by minimalistic welfare systems.
I don't see how you aren't getting this. To be employed by someone you enter a legal contract with them. If either party breaks policy in that contract, the agreement is void and the other party is free from liability. The only reason a company would pay someone they fired is if they had no reason to fire that person in the first place, ie. legal responsibility.
Your fear of regulation scares me. Of course everything we buy or sell has to do with the government. Everything we buy or sell is traded in federal currency.
|
The generation 4 nuclear reactors Are so sexy. Thorium instead of plutonium and salt water instead of heavy water. UMFGH
Sad the problem with the nuclear waste. Would be the perfect power source to solve all problems.
|
On October 11 2011 14:39 Hamski wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 14:26 AmishNukes wrote:On October 11 2011 14:04 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 13:51 AmishNukes wrote:On October 11 2011 13:30 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 13:20 CatharsisUT wrote:On October 11 2011 12:53 Hamski wrote:On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports. Both of these points are completely incorrect, I'm sorry. Unions were essential at the turn of the century because workers were taken advantage of and had no access to representation. If you required more than your employer was willing to give, barring unreasonableness, there were hundreds of unemployed waiting in line for the sub-par job you had (much like today). Secondly, unions are completely self-sufficient. Not only are they not a drain on anyone who is not a member, they are actually for-profit and pay federal income taxes. You pay weekly dues for representation, regulation, and often a fair, higher-than-market wage to account for those costs. Ok well you just agreed with me on number one. Not sure what your point is. I agree that they were useful when employees had no mobility. My point was that labor mobility has made this need insignificant. Don't like the closest employer? Go somewhere else. If a company has to pay its employees a higher-than-market wage then they must increase their prices. That hurts the rest of us. It's simple economics. Higher costs equal higher prices for the rest of us. 1. Look inside the quotes of my first paragraph. I actually completely disagreed with you. 2. If a company CHOOSES to pay their employees higher-than-market wages or benefits they benefit from higher employee satisfaction, less turnaround, and increased productivity. Less expenses from training and delays and higher productivity can offset wage costs very easily. Ever heard of Ford Motor Company? 1914, they paid twice their competitor's wages and grew 300% in the three years following. You should read up on it sometime. One situation where paying higher wages led to better growth does not make a case. Nor am I saying it's not a sound idea. But I'm going to guess they could fire someone in 1914 for being a lackluster employee and replace them with someone who would earn that higher wage. Corporations don't have that luxury anymore. You can't fire someone without a lawsuit unless you can easily prove they intentionally did something to harm the company. If your case isn't clear-cut, the litigation isn't worth replacing them. I used a more extreme reference for your sake. Maybe I should've used Comcast? Google? Either way, I have yet to see anyone claim paying the majority of their staff a little more than their competitors actually hurt their profits. Corporations these days fire whoever they want. I assume by lawsuit you mean unemployment hearings, which if you have no reason to fire said employee, you should be paying it. God forbid businesses have to obey laws these days. If you do have grounds for termination, then you'll be glad to hear a normal hearing around here only takes an hour and a half. I suppose you'll be glad to hear that it usually doesn't even make it that far because that employee is going to be fired before his probationary period is up whether he worked well or not to save costs on providing benefits. Apparently it's relatively cheaper to train someone knew and work them for 90 days than it is to keep someone around full-time. Why should a company have to pay someone they fired? They aren't responsible for employing you. You say, god forbid they have to obey laws. I'm saying those laws are invalid in the first place. Every employment contract should be between employee and employer. If you want better protections against being layed-off or fired find a different employer. If I want a higher wage with no guarantees that's my prerogative. The way things are today, everything you buy or sell, including your labor, is a transaction between you, the other party, and the government. I don't just mean taxes. The government's overzealous protections keep people from being employed. NOTE: Some government regulations are necessary to protect us from risks we cannot properly assess ourselves but many of the governments regulations should be up to the parties involved to decide. Those that can't make the correct decisions for themselves should live with their mistakes even to the extent of poverty supported by minimalistic welfare systems. I don't see how you aren't getting this. To be employed by someone you enter a legal contract with them. If either party breaks policy in that contract, the agreement is void and the other party is free from liability. The only reason a company would pay someone they fired is if they had no reason to fire that person in the first place, ie. legal responsibility. Your fear of regulation scares me. Of course everything we buy or sell has to do with the government. Everything we buy or sell is traded in federal currency.
Holy shit. Are you American ? Just asking out of curiosity. You think the use of federal currency makes every transaction the government's business ? Holy shit. The reason for the federal currency is so we don't have to deal with 50 million different currencies.
And, btw, you don't need a reason to fire someone. Not in right to work states, at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
