Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Idea for protecting wages w/o unions

ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 8:48:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Define the "median non-wealthy compensation" of a company as being the median compensation of employees of the company whose compensation is not more than double the national median individual income. Suppose there was a law (for companies with at least 20 employees say) that a company's median non-wealthy compensation could not go down unless the book value of the company went down. Opinions? Does anyone know if anything similar to this has ever been tried?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 8:58:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.

Your just essentially allowing sticky wages to occur which is the driving force of unemployment. The company will just be forced to fire or cease hiring workers. Thus driving up unemployment. Not to mention the increased regulatory cost of this, especially for smaller business workers.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 9:01:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 8:58:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No.

Your just essentially allowing sticky wages to occur which is the driving force of unemployment. The company will just be forced to fire or cease hiring workers.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, the company is essentially prohibited from firing on net under his policy.

Which is absurd, the company will then lose value (which will trigger the exemption in his rules, defeating the point in 100% of cases), but not quite what you seem to be saying.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 9:05:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 9:01:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2012 8:58:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No.

Your just essentially allowing sticky wages to occur which is the driving force of unemployment. The company will just be forced to fire or cease hiring workers.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, the company is essentially prohibited from firing on net under his policy.

Which is absurd, the company will then lose value (which will trigger the exemption in his rules, defeating the point in 100% of cases), but not quite what you seem to be saying.

Where did it say that the company would be prevented from firing? At the very least, the company will be less likely to hire under the system, which is just as bad.

Also it would lose market value, but not book value under his system.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 9:23:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not accurate. If you fire someone below the company non-wealthy median, the median goes up. If you fire someone above the median, that would be a problem, you'd have to replace them or pay the remaining employees more. But why would that be a problem if the company is not loosing book value? If the company were not profitable, it would be burning cash or other assets, and the book value would go down. If does make it a bit harder for stockholders to make money, since the company cannot generate ROI by squeezing its workers. But I doubt that dark notion of the economy is accurate, that companies cannot give a reasonable ROI to investors without making their employees poorer.

At 6/16/2012 9:01:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2012 8:58:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No.

Your just essentially allowing sticky wages to occur which is the driving force of unemployment. The company will just be forced to fire or cease hiring workers.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, the company is essentially prohibited from firing on net under his policy.

Which is absurd, the company will then lose value (which will trigger the exemption in his rules, defeating the point in 100% of cases), but not quite what you seem to be saying.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 10:10:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 9:05:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/16/2012 9:01:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2012 8:58:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No.

Your just essentially allowing sticky wages to occur which is the driving force of unemployment. The company will just be forced to fire or cease hiring workers.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, the company is essentially prohibited from firing on net under his policy.

Which is absurd, the company will then lose value (which will trigger the exemption in his rules, defeating the point in 100% of cases), but not quite what you seem to be saying.

Where did it say that the company would be prevented from firing?
The total value of wages can't change. Not individual wages. The total payroll.
If it fires, it has to pay people more, if it pays people less, it has to hire more people.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 10:10:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh wait, nevermind, I misread that. Median, not total. I'm a screwup.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:01:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 9:23:01 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
Not accurate. If you fire someone below the company non-wealthy median, the median goes up. If you fire someone above the median, that would be a problem, you'd have to replace them or pay the remaining employees more.
But why would that be a problem if the company is not loosing book value?

It doesn't matter what the company's book value is. What's important is how much value a person brings to the company.

If the company were not profitable, it would be burning cash or other assets, and the book value would go down.

Or it could just declare bankruptcy.

If does make it a bit harder for stockholders to make money, since the company cannot generate ROI by squeezing its workers. But I doubt that dark notion of the economy is accurate, that companies cannot give a reasonable ROI to investors without making their employees poorer.

What do you consider reasonable? It takes ~20 years for the ROI to be paid. Most of the profits the company gets is only about 6% of revenue. Even If all the profits were given to the workers, it would be only a measly increase in pay.


At 6/16/2012 9:01:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2012 8:58:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No.

Your just essentially allowing sticky wages to occur which is the driving force of unemployment. The company will just be forced to fire or cease hiring workers.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, the company is essentially prohibited from firing on net under his policy.

Which is absurd, the company will then lose value (which will trigger the exemption in his rules, defeating the point in 100% of cases), but not quite what you seem to be saying.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:06:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay, never-mind on profits only being a small portion of company. I've been doing the calculation on some random companies and in turns out that if the workers did get all the profits (not that I think they should) it would be a significant amount.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:10:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
According to Milton Friedman:
"80% of national income is wages, and only about 6% is profits after tax, providing very little room for higher wages, even if profits could be totally used up."

Not its about 14%.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:13:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I looked up BP and target.

Target can give around $8,000 in profits to its employees (however most of their employees are low-pay and part time) while BP could give $72,000 in profits to its employees.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:38:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 11:06:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Okay, never-mind on profits only being a small portion of company. I've been doing the calculation on some random companies and in turns out that if the workers did get all the profits (not that I think they should) it would be a significant amount.

Depends on the company. When I looked at convergys, they could split up all profits to give each employee a raise of something like $0.10/hr.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:43:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 11:38:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:06:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Okay, never-mind on profits only being a small portion of company. I've been doing the calculation on some random companies and in turns out that if the workers did get all the profits (not that I think they should) it would be a significant amount.

Depends on the company. When I looked at convergys, they could split up all profits to give each employee a raise of something like $0.10/hr.

I looked it up. That company has terrible profit-to-worker ratio. I think most small companies do. And If the owner is also a major worker as well its hard to distinguish profits from work. However, larger corporations like BP have much higher profit-to-worker ratio.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:56:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 11:43:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:38:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:06:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Okay, never-mind on profits only being a small portion of company. I've been doing the calculation on some random companies and in turns out that if the workers did get all the profits (not that I think they should) it would be a significant amount.

Depends on the company. When I looked at convergys, they could split up all profits to give each employee a raise of something like $0.10/hr.

I looked it up. That company has terrible profit-to-worker ratio. I think most small companies do. And If the owner is also a major worker as well its hard to distinguish profits from work. However, larger corporations like BP have much higher profit-to-worker ratio.

Yeah, some companies could definitely compensate their employees more, but I'm not going to say they should or they have to. I'd be happy with one of BP's jobs that pay $80-$250k. It's just the customer support reps who don't get paid well.

But, I also don't know what kind of expenses they face or could face for expansion/new regulations/changing markets/etc... Big business has got to be so complicated, and I admit I don't understand it all.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:57:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 11:48:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
why did you use convergys as an example? I've never heard of them before?

I worked for them once when I was unemployed. I just used them as an example of how CEO salaries don't necessarily impact employee pay in all cases. You can take the salaries from the top 5 execs and give everyone else a raise of $0.02/hr.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:04:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Note I wasn't necessarily arguing that just because a corporation makes large profits that means that the employees should keep it. I just realized that the argument that "employees can't bargain for higher pay because there isn't enough profits" isn't as convincing as I once thought it was.

I think though that there is an inherent power dynamic problem though when working for a large corporation. They have more bargaining power then you do. I used to be quite anti-union but now I'm not so entirely sure. I know there are problems with unions. I'm especially against government union workers, since government programs can't go bankrupt like business's can.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:07:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 11:57:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:48:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
why did you use convergys as an example? I've never heard of them before?

I worked for them once when I was unemployed. I just used them as an example of how CEO salaries don't necessarily impact employee pay in all cases. You can take the salaries from the top 5 execs and give everyone else a raise of $0.02/hr.

I'd be surprises If most CEO salaries make a significant portion of the revenue expenses. But then again, I don't know. Of course there are many other higher ups that make extraordinary amounts of money that are near CEO levels.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:24:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:04:29 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Note I wasn't necessarily arguing that just because a corporation makes large profits that means that the employees should keep it. I just realized that the argument that "employees can't bargain for higher pay because there isn't enough profits" isn't as convincing as I once thought it was.

It can seem that way, but it's not as simple as how much profit a company makes. Companies are mostly about cash-flow, so they often have ever-increasing debt for ever-expanding operations, and sometimes they start to fall behind. Take Target for an example. Their profits have been between 2.2 and 2.9 billion for the last 6 years, but their debt has increased from 10 billion to 17.4 billion over that time period. Their assets have increased as well, but how far will their 4% profit margin carry them if the market dives again, with debt which is 600-900% of their profits?

Employees don't understand all of this(not including all the stuff that I don't understand as well). That's what make it all so dangerous. A union can say 'Hey, you're making $6 billion a year! Share some!, when in reality that $8 billion isn't very much and the company isn't doing as well as that makes it seem.

And then, the smaller the company, generally, the worse the problem becomes.

I think though that there is an inherent power dynamic problem though when working for a large corporation. They have more bargaining power then you do. I used to be quite anti-union but now I'm not so entirely sure. I know there are problems with unions. I'm especially against government union workers, since government programs can't go bankrupt like business's can.

The best way to give people bargaining power is to fix unemployment. Median wages, adjusted for inflation, have been constantly rising, albeit slowly, for 60 years. Our poor are better off than yesterday's poor, as are our middle class and upper class.

I'm very anti-union... at least in the US. The things we needed unions for in the past are things we don't need them for anymore. Unions throw the balance way too far in favor of employees, and it's strictly unfair to do so. A company does not belong to the employees.

Beside, upward mobility in the US is extremely high. Despite what some think, America is still very much the land of opportunity. If you don't like your wages, you can find a way to improve your situation.

Convergys pays $8-$10/hr for most employees. They get what they pay for :)
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:26:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:07:27 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:57:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:48:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
why did you use convergys as an example? I've never heard of them before?

I worked for them once when I was unemployed. I just used them as an example of how CEO salaries don't necessarily impact employee pay in all cases. You can take the salaries from the top 5 execs and give everyone else a raise of $0.02/hr.

I'd be surprises If most CEO salaries make a significant portion of the revenue expenses. But then again, I don't know. Of course there are many other higher ups that make extraordinary amounts of money that are near CEO levels.

You are more rational than many other people. Liberals in particular seem to enjoy pointing at someone and blaming the problem on them. It's big businesses, it's CEOs, it's the 1%, etc...

I remember someone claiming that the CEO of Coke who was making $50 million a year or something like that was responsible for the high cost of soda. I calculated it out to something ridiculous like $0.0000002/can of soda that went to his salary.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:35:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:26:56 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:07:27 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:57:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:48:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
why did you use convergys as an example? I've never heard of them before?

I worked for them once when I was unemployed. I just used them as an example of how CEO salaries don't necessarily impact employee pay in all cases. You can take the salaries from the top 5 execs and give everyone else a raise of $0.02/hr.

I'd be surprises If most CEO salaries make a significant portion of the revenue expenses. But then again, I don't know. Of course there are many other higher ups that make extraordinary amounts of money that are near CEO levels.

You are more rational than many other people. Liberals in particular seem to enjoy pointing at someone and blaming the problem on them. It's big businesses, it's CEOs, it's the 1%, etc...

I remember someone claiming that the CEO of Coke who was making $50 million a year or something like that was responsible for the high cost of soda. I calculated it out to something ridiculous like $0.0000002/can of soda that went to his salary.

Thanks. You have to understand though that most people don't really think too much about their actual political positions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:46:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:35:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:26:56 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:07:27 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:57:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:48:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
why did you use convergys as an example? I've never heard of them before?

I worked for them once when I was unemployed. I just used them as an example of how CEO salaries don't necessarily impact employee pay in all cases. You can take the salaries from the top 5 execs and give everyone else a raise of $0.02/hr.

I'd be surprises If most CEO salaries make a significant portion of the revenue expenses. But then again, I don't know. Of course there are many other higher ups that make extraordinary amounts of money that are near CEO levels.

You are more rational than many other people. Liberals in particular seem to enjoy pointing at someone and blaming the problem on them. It's big businesses, it's CEOs, it's the 1%, etc...

I remember someone claiming that the CEO of Coke who was making $50 million a year or something like that was responsible for the high cost of soda. I calculated it out to something ridiculous like $0.0000002/can of soda that went to his salary.

Thanks. You have to understand though that most people don't really think too much about their actual political positions.

I understand that :)

I used to be a brain-dead conservative :D

Now I'm trying to re-evaluate my positions. I never thought I would be for the legalization of marijuana, or for regulations, lol.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:49:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:24:52 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:04:29 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Note I wasn't necessarily arguing that just because a corporation makes large profits that means that the employees should keep it. I just realized that the argument that "employees can't bargain for higher pay because there isn't enough profits" isn't as convincing as I once thought it was.

It can seem that way, but it's not as simple as how much profit a company makes. Companies are mostly about cash-flow, so they often have ever-increasing debt for ever-expanding operations, and sometimes they start to fall behind. Take Target for an example. Their profits have been between 2.2 and 2.9 billion for the last 6 years, but their debt has increased from 10 billion to 17.4 billion over that time period. Their assets have increased as well, but how far will their 4% profit margin carry them if the market dives again, with debt which is 600-900% of their profits?

Well, whatever was paid on the debt is also represented in the revenue section though, correct? Yea, I suppose I see your point though that the company has to expand to keep up with the debt. Although the company does have equity, and the equity is positive for most companies (meaning that their assets are greater then their liabilities). A lot of the assets are illiquid, but still...

Employees don't understand all of this(not including all the stuff that I don't understand as well). That's what make it all so dangerous. A union can say 'Hey, you're making $6 billion a year! Share some!, when in reality that $8 billion isn't very much and the company isn't doing as well as that makes it seem.

I can see that being a problem. Although, the union rep. should have some basic understanding of this as well. The union has a vested interested in the company succeeding as well.

And then, the smaller the company, generally, the worse the problem becomes.

I think though that there is an inherent power dynamic problem though when working for a large corporation. They have more bargaining power then you do. I used to be quite anti-union but now I'm not so entirely sure. I know there are problems with unions. I'm especially against government union workers, since government programs can't go bankrupt like business's can.

The best way to give people bargaining power is to fix unemployment. Median wages, adjusted for inflation, have been constantly rising, albeit slowly, for 60 years. Our poor are better off than yesterday's poor, as are our middle class and upper class.

Well median incomes and upper income yes. Poorer incomes have not been increasing much at all.
http://www.toomuchonline.org...

The main problem I see is that If one is going to join a company then he/she has no idea of what the atmosphere is like. He/she can be certain of a few things on a contract. But there is a lot of information asymmetric when obtaining a job. It especially looks bad If you quit your job to future employees. And the threat of firing holds a lot of power over you, since you will have difficulty finding a job If fired.

We have laws that stop employee abuse (ex: sexual harassment lawsuits). But It could be pretty bad If such laws didn't exist.

I'm very anti-union... at least in the US. The things we needed unions for in the past are things we don't need them for anymore. Unions throw the balance way too far in favor of employees, and it's strictly unfair to do so. A company does not belong to the employees.

Beside, upward mobility in the US is extremely high. Despite what some think, America is still very much the land of opportunity. If you don't like your wages, you can find a way to improve your situation.

Convergys pays $8-$10/hr for most employees. They get what they pay for :)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:54:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:46:52 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:35:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:26:56 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:07:27 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:57:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:48:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
why did you use convergys as an example? I've never heard of them before?

I worked for them once when I was unemployed. I just used them as an example of how CEO salaries don't necessarily impact employee pay in all cases. You can take the salaries from the top 5 execs and give everyone else a raise of $0.02/hr.

I'd be surprises If most CEO salaries make a significant portion of the revenue expenses. But then again, I don't know. Of course there are many other higher ups that make extraordinary amounts of money that are near CEO levels.

You are more rational than many other people. Liberals in particular seem to enjoy pointing at someone and blaming the problem on them. It's big businesses, it's CEOs, it's the 1%, etc...

I remember someone claiming that the CEO of Coke who was making $50 million a year or something like that was responsible for the high cost of soda. I calculated it out to something ridiculous like $0.0000002/can of soda that went to his salary.

Thanks. You have to understand though that most people don't really think too much about their actual political positions.

I understand that :)

I used to be a brain-dead conservative :D

Now I'm trying to re-evaluate my positions. I never thought I would be for the legalization of marijuana, or for regulations, lol.

Lol, I went from a environmentalist to a non-aggression principle libertarian to just "other" right now since I don't know what to define myself now and don't want to define myself through labels. I'm socially liberal but heading towards the left again in terms of economics. I still consider myself right-leaning though. Economics is kind of complex so I have to look at things from a case-by-case basis.

Although social liberal =/= democrat. Democrats are just as bad and are possibly worse in terms of tramping on social freedoms as republicans are.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:01:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:49:28 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:24:52 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:04:29 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Note I wasn't necessarily arguing that just because a corporation makes large profits that means that the employees should keep it. I just realized that the argument that "employees can't bargain for higher pay because there isn't enough profits" isn't as convincing as I once thought it was.

It can seem that way, but it's not as simple as how much profit a company makes. Companies are mostly about cash-flow, so they often have ever-increasing debt for ever-expanding operations, and sometimes they start to fall behind. Take Target for an example. Their profits have been between 2.2 and 2.9 billion for the last 6 years, but their debt has increased from 10 billion to 17.4 billion over that time period. Their assets have increased as well, but how far will their 4% profit margin carry them if the market dives again, with debt which is 600-900% of their profits?

Well, whatever was paid on the debt is also represented in the revenue section though, correct? Yea, I suppose I see your point though that the company has to expand to keep up with the debt. Although the company does have equity, and the equity is positive for most companies (meaning that their assets are greater then their liabilities). A lot of the assets are illiquid, but still...

Yeah, interest payments are represented, but if SHTF, a company can have a hard time surviving for very long. With our unemployment rate right now, all these corporations have to think about how they will handle another recession.

I can see that being a problem. Although, the union rep. should have some basic understanding of this as well. The union has a vested interested in the company succeeding as well.

It should. It doesn't seem to work that way in America though. Other countries pull it off splendidly... :/

Two of the companies that Romney gets bashed on for 'closing down' are good examples. One was a typewriter manufacturing plant. In the late 90s, making typewriters. Demand went down, but the union didn't agree to a 20% pay cut, so they lost their jobs. Same thing with one of the steel companies. UAW had ridiculous wages considering the company's financial situations. USPS loses billions every year(like you said, government+union is the worst combo), but if I get a job behind the counter I'll start at $16/hr with great benefits.

Well median incomes and upper income yes. Poorer incomes have not been increasing much at all.

Not much, but a little. Even if it goes up a little, I call it a good thing.

http://www.toomuchonline.org...

The main problem I see is that If one is going to join a company then he/she has no idea of what the atmosphere is like. He/she can be certain of a few things on a contract. But there is a lot of information asymmetric when obtaining a job. It especially looks bad If you quit your job to future employees. And the threat of firing holds a lot of power over you, since you will have difficulty finding a job If fired.

That's why having low unemployment is the best tool for the general population. It makes employers compete for employees.

Information asymmetry is decreasing every year. Now you can go online and find reviews for almost any position and any employer. You can read about working conditions, benefits, pay, etc...

We have laws that stop employee abuse (ex: sexual harassment lawsuits). But It could be pretty bad If such laws didn't exist.

My family went through a situation like that. I was grateful for the EEOC, even though it took a long time to work through things.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:04:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:54:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:46:52 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:35:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:26:56 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:07:27 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:57:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:48:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
why did you use convergys as an example? I've never heard of them before?

I worked for them once when I was unemployed. I just used them as an example of how CEO salaries don't necessarily impact employee pay in all cases. You can take the salaries from the top 5 execs and give everyone else a raise of $0.02/hr.

I'd be surprises If most CEO salaries make a significant portion of the revenue expenses. But then again, I don't know. Of course there are many other higher ups that make extraordinary amounts of money that are near CEO levels.

You are more rational than many other people. Liberals in particular seem to enjoy pointing at someone and blaming the problem on them. It's big businesses, it's CEOs, it's the 1%, etc...

I remember someone claiming that the CEO of Coke who was making $50 million a year or something like that was responsible for the high cost of soda. I calculated it out to something ridiculous like $0.0000002/can of soda that went to his salary.

Thanks. You have to understand though that most people don't really think too much about their actual political positions.

I understand that :)

I used to be a brain-dead conservative :D

Now I'm trying to re-evaluate my positions. I never thought I would be for the legalization of marijuana, or for regulations, lol.

Lol, I went from a environmentalist to a non-aggression principle libertarian to just "other" right now since I don't know what to define myself now and don't want to define myself through labels. I'm socially liberal but heading towards the left again in terms of economics. I still consider myself right-leaning though. Economics is kind of complex so I have to look at things from a case-by-case basis.

Although social liberal =/= democrat. Democrats are just as bad and are possibly worse in terms of tramping on social freedoms as republicans are.

I haven't gotten around to 'labeling' myself yet, but I agree that labels can be a problem. I wonder, if R and D leaders suddenly switched all positions overnight, how many people would switch their views with them?

I want to call myself something independent or centrist, but then I feel like I'm copping out. Most sides of the spectrum have the right idea in one way or another, and I don't think compromise is the right way to go. Then you just get a little bit of good and a little bit of bad from most decisions.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:10:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:01:36 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:49:28 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:24:52 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:04:29 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Note I wasn't necessarily arguing that just because a corporation makes large profits that means that the employees should keep it. I just realized that the argument that "employees can't bargain for higher pay because there isn't enough profits" isn't as convincing as I once thought it was.

It can seem that way, but it's not as simple as how much profit a company makes. Companies are mostly about cash-flow, so they often have ever-increasing debt for ever-expanding operations, and sometimes they start to fall behind. Take Target for an example. Their profits have been between 2.2 and 2.9 billion for the last 6 years, but their debt has increased from 10 billion to 17.4 billion over that time period. Their assets have increased as well, but how far will their 4% profit margin carry them if the market dives again, with debt which is 600-900% of their profits?

Well, whatever was paid on the debt is also represented in the revenue section though, correct? Yea, I suppose I see your point though that the company has to expand to keep up with the debt. Although the company does have equity, and the equity is positive for most companies (meaning that their assets are greater then their liabilities). A lot of the assets are illiquid, but still...

Yeah, interest payments are represented, but if SHTF, a company can have a hard time surviving for very long. With our unemployment rate right now, all these corporations have to think about how they will handle another recession.

I can see that being a problem. Although, the union rep. should have some basic understanding of this as well. The union has a vested interested in the company succeeding as well.

It should. It doesn't seem to work that way in America though. Other countries pull it off splendidly... :/

Two of the companies that Romney gets bashed on for 'closing down' are good examples. One was a typewriter manufacturing plant. In the late 90s, making typewriters. Demand went down, but the union didn't agree to a 20% pay cut, so they lost their jobs. Same thing with one of the steel companies. UAW had ridiculous wages considering the company's financial situations. USPS loses billions every year(like you said, government+union is the worst combo), but if I get a job behind the counter I'll start at $16/hr with great benefits.

Well median incomes and upper income yes. Poorer incomes have not been increasing much at all.

Not much, but a little. Even if it goes up a little, I call it a good thing.

http://www.toomuchonline.org...

The main problem I see is that If one is going to join a company then he/she has no idea of what the atmosphere is like. He/she can be certain of a few things on a contract. But there is a lot of information asymmetric when obtaining a job. It especially looks bad If you quit your job to future employees. And the threat of firing holds a lot of power over you, since you will have difficulty finding a job If fired.

That's why having low unemployment is the best tool for the general population. It makes employers compete for employees.

Information asymmetry is decreasing every year. Now you can go online and find reviews for almost any position and any employer. You can read about working conditions, benefits, pay, etc...

We have laws that stop employee abuse (ex: sexual harassment lawsuits). But It could be pretty bad If such laws didn't exist.

My family went through a situation like that. I was grateful for the EEOC, even though it took a long time to work through things.

I don't see how american unions could be any worse then European unions. I mean, are american just stupider than europeans? Of course, the laws and system of organizing unions are different in europe than america. And I honestly don't think europeans are super great either. Some nations like the nordic countries have great economic growth while maintaining strong unions. However, they also have the counterbalance of less regulation then the US. Other countries like Spain and Greece are down the sh!tter, and France has had pretty stagnant growth.

Even using economic growth as an indicator can be misleading because who knows how much of it is sustainable or not.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:20:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:10:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't see how american unions could be any worse then European unions. I mean, are american just stupider than europeans? Of course, the laws and system of organizing unions are different in europe than america. And I honestly don't think europeans are super great either. Some nations like the nordic countries have great economic growth while maintaining strong unions. However, they also have the counterbalance of less regulation then the US. Other countries like Spain and Greece are down the sh!tter, and France has had pretty stagnant growth.

I'm not sure about all European unions, but I believe the system in Sweden works out well for all involved. I admit, my knowledge of EU unions and their impacts is very, very, well, nonexistent :D

I don't know what makes the difference between countries. Part of it, I think, is 'having it good'. When Americans grew up with less, and working at a younger age, working on farms, etc, I think they had better sense and work ethic.

Even using economic growth as an indicator can be misleading because who knows how much of it is sustainable or not.

Maybe the real answer is just for everyone to give their money to me.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:23:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:12:40 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Also a video that convinced me of the reason why sexual harassment laws are beneficial.



My suggestion to my kids is to always carry a recorder around at work...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13