Obama: "Profits have to be shared by workers" ... Idiodic Statements for $500 please!

reply to post by buddhasystem


I am not offering a defense of the status quo....just speaking in fact and reality.

BTW, when you talk about bleeding money, the loans are only part of it. That is tomorrow's money. What few people consider is the massive exportation of US dollars by people like Indian doctors. I have no idea how to quantify how much money is sent back to their families in the form of aid, but with 2 doctors that I know i can tell you that it amounts to (between them) about 3 million a year. Money send off shore to prop up an emerging economy and future competitor.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I may have misunderstood your question.

I think the short and sweet answer is, worker productivity is improving because of greatly refined processes and the near God like capabilities that can be inferred by technology.

But wait, for most of American history this was exactly the case, albeit with a different outcome when it came to wages vs productivity. It might have been the genius of Mr. Ford that he invented the assembly line, but as a result a lot of people started earning more. These days, a new hi-tech call center opens and workers don't get paid more. Discrepancy?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I may have misunderstood your question.

I think the short and sweet answer is, worker productivity is improving because of greatly refined processes and the near God like capabilities that can be inferred by technology.

But wait, for most of American history this was exactly the case, albeit with a different outcome when it came to wages vs productivity. It might have been the genius of Mr. Ford that he invented the assembly line, but as a result a lot of people started earning more. These days, a new hi-tech call center opens and workers don't get paid more. Discrepancy?

Call center employees DO make more and more. Ones that handle outsourcing generally set up some kind of bonus program as well, which rewards performance. One thing that most business leaders have noticed, however, is that more money does not equal greater productivity. You high performers are going to perform well regardless of bonus, and the slackers will always slack. So movement is going more towards other methods of reward other than money. Money is just too short lived an "investment" for most business.

But the hourly wage is stable. Keep in mind, a call center employee competes with the Chinese, Phillipines, India, and Central America. Cheap labor. So keeping wages in the US at least stagnate right now is not so bad. It boils down, in that facet, to globalism.

But the BIG game changer is computers. The assembly line was a huge improvement in process. But a similiar improvement in process is the GENESYS call router (or a system similar) that can handle calls and call routing to a degree that an overall reduction in force can be seen. This is the difference i am talking about. Ford found a way to make workers more efficient. Computers, on the other hand, have found a way to make the worker less relevant. THAT is the major difference between now, and 100 years ago.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But the hourly wage is stable. Keep in mind, a call center employee competes with the Chinese, Phillipines, India, and Central America. Cheap labor. So keeping wages in the US at least stagnate right now is not so bad. It boils down, in that facet, to globalism.

It boils down to decay of social contract in our society. Importing labor by any means is an Anti-American thing to do. I'm not bashing you by a long shot, believe me, I'm just stating the obvious reality. You do what's best for you and I respect that for the most part. The Americans have long enjoyed higher living standards than Cambodians because this was the deal -- theoretically, they could live in abject poverty but through social struggle got higher living standards. Now it's rolling back, and it's not good for America.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I am not saying that moving more into a protectionist stance would be bad. but a full move to protectionist tactics would send out delicate and damaged economy toppling. It is a major lesson that led up to the Great Depression, as trade was stifled both ways, leaving the US with little influx of money (stagnation), among other stresses.

BFFT, as I said already, we are bleeding money! We don't get it from abroad, on net basis. Frankly, it's almost like a Ponzi scheme. We borrow more and more from foreign powers and keep a straight face. What influx, seriosuly? Things were different in the first half of 20th century as the country was becoming an industrial powerhouse.

Even worse, we have the added issue of a tarnished flag, and some attractive offers from other nations like China (who will build a whole city for you if you can move in at least 25k jobs). We risk losing major industries if our government goes too far into a protectionist stance.

Why should we care about job creation in China? 25k or 100k? This is way down on my list of priorities today. Attractive or not, I want to see a shop open in Pittsburg, not in Shanghai. What industries do we stand to lose? We don't export too many cars anyhow. We don't make fridges anymore (and we did in 1990). Our software is written by Indian programmers imported to Redmond by Microsoft. The capital in the US was created by hard work and sweat of Americans and now it's been "expatriated" by all means imaginable leaving us high and dry. It just stinks.

I feel confident in whatever faces me, short of an ELE.

I really am happy to hear that. You did well for yourself and it's great. I was in a different line of occupation all my life which makes not as well heeled, even though I worked throughout my life. So no, I don't feel confident even without ELE.

The whole world is one big giant Ponzi Scheme. The US borrows from China and Saudi Arabia, and China and Saudi Arabia will also Borrow money from somebody else. But the craziest thing is where the US Mint Prints Digital money, just gives to Benanke, the Benanke then Loans those Ones and Zeros back to the Government, the Government Loans it to the Banksters, then the Banksters loans some of it and the rest goes towards the Banksters Lifestyle. But the People have to Pay back all the Money the US Government gave to Benanke plus all the accumulated Interest from all the previous exchanges.

What I don't understand is, why did take so long to get to where it is today. Madoff was such an Amature, he only Ponzied Billions. The Professionals are Ponzieing Trillions, there in a Totally different league.


.

reply to post by buddhasystem




You may have missed it, but i have been pretty candid that i do not support this system. Look back a page for a better explanation of my views. I am just discussing matters of fact, as i see them. I often do not like the facts....but you can't change what is without a little extra work.

And like The Laughing Man said, "DO SOMETHING". So i do something, even if it isn't much (yet) to try to make tomorrow a better future for us.

ETA: you are right. American comfort has come at the cost of having our boot on the back of the third worlds' neck. It is a sad fact that has broken my heart since i was in 3rd grade and realized this.

reply to post by midnightbrigade


Wow, really? You think the middle class is being killed by the working poor? Interesting. You don't think that cutting costs (and corners), off-shoring jobs and mechanizing labor processes have anything to do with that?

Big Macs are going to go up because minimum wage is going to go up. If you don't like cooking your own food, you should expect someone to be treated fairly to cook for you. This isn't the Antebellum South...Mammy isn't going to make your dinner for left over pig parts and for "free" rent in the shack out behind the plantation house.

The cheapest way to keep your paycheck is to make your own food. Again, service implies another's labor. People who do things for other people for no payment but meager shelter and scrap food are called slaves.
People who do things for other people for payment that can only buy meager shelter and scrap food are called wage slaves.

Same crap, different century, new ideas about logistics.

As "outsourcing" is so popular, it should come as no surprise that the only change in "slavery" is the outsourcing of "room and board".

Also, you base your quality of life on how many big macs you can buy? (joking)

reply to post by lilsmurf


Flawed Libro-Socialist Argument; Some companies do things that aren't fair, therefore, all companies must be forced to be fair. It's like affirmative action, it's only there to make people who have nothing to do with the problem feel better, while not fixing anything. if Obama is worried about the American worker getting a fair shake, he needs to figure out how to bring jobs back to America from overseas, lower the tax burden on the folks who are suffering and leave the rich folks alone, make it easier for people to switch careers and reward companies for going into fields that we are not currently #1 in the world in. To say that companies should be forced to share the benefits of tax revision and increased export activity is not the gov't's place. We have unions if workers feel that they are being treated poorly, and maybe we need to increase the liberties of the unions, but to say that we need gov't regs on how every company is allowed to split up their profits is TYRANNICAL. Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee a lowest-level worker the same pay as his CEO.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
American comfort has come at the cost of having our boot on the back of the third worlds' neck.

Yep. Which is why the US is like every other empire in the history of the world, and why we will face the same fate... eventually opposition to the empire grows to be overwhelming while at the same time the empire rots from within... complacency, dependence on a vanishing military superority, inability to innovate outside the bounds of what worked in the past but does no longer, the elite class devolves to nothing more than eternally working to maintain their elite status, etc etc.

Eventually these two forces - mounting opposition from without and mounting rot from within - are such that the empire crumbles.

If the empire has enough integrity and honesty left to recognize this, it can act to soften the fall. If not, the fall is long and painful, for both the empire and the rest of the world.

We can see these forces in operation now. Mounting resistance to the US around the world, combined with what we see domestically. For instance all this energy wasted on the absurd claim that Obama is some kind of Socialist because he wants to improve the lot of workers (aka "commoners") in addition to the elite.

It is interesting to be alive during the fall of an empire. Not necessarily pleasant, but interesting.

reply to post by gncnew


How times have changed...for the worse for the American middle class.
Back in the 1950-60s companies were happy to share their profits with their workers, as a reward/recognition for helping their company to be successful. My father received a profit sharing check at the end of the year. And that was during a time of much anti-Communist rhetoric.

The wealthy, Republican, church going owner of the business that employed my father would now be labeled a godless Commie. Back then he was a model of the capitalist system. How times have changed...for the worse.

I made it to page two but honestly I just can't stand this thread. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR A CORPORATION TO SHARE PROFITS WITH EMPLOYEES. First of all, a profit is what is left after a company has paid all of its expenses. Employees are an expense. Therefore it is physically impossible by definition for a company to pay its workers in profits. Second of all, even if that were not true, it is entirely illegal for a corporation to give away money purely just for sake of charity as corporations have a government mandate to operate for-profit only. When a corporation gives to charity they are improving their image.

The entire point of a corporation is to assign rights and privileges, most notably a limitation on how much that corporation must compensating other people for financial damages done to them. And how do you get those rights and privilages? By paying something like a $200 annual fee to your friendly state office. Its all a scam. Corporations are a scam. So apparently that does not bother Obama because HE IS THE SCAM ARTIST.

A fair wage is being paid market rates. If a company is paying an employee more than that fair wage that is just fine with me but its simply charity. If this is not enough then there is charity. Its a simple concept that does work in the real world! Yet Obama can never understand such a thing because from his perspective everyone else is a scam artist too and therefore would not voluntarily give to people in need, even though the vast majority of us do in fact do exactly that.

Working hard is stupid and working hard is for cave men. The harder you work, the more miserable your life. Work smart instead of working hard and you'll be very well off. American "hard workers" are nothing more than a hamster running on wheel and going nowhere fast. I can't imagine what's going through the mind of the "hard workers" here on ATS but I'm convinced they need to take a vacation or two. The entire economy is based on a foundation of working less and less hard as time goes on. In fact, work has gone from over 50% of our day just for our food, to working less than 10% of the day just for our food as today. That is less work over time and clearly and obviously a great thing to those of us who have that set-up. Those hard workers out there can work all day for just a bottle of water or something if they think hard work is so spectacular. The economy has nothing to do with working hard and everything to do with increasing efficiency, which is why management gets paid all the bucks (and they get it fair and square in many cases) while those doing the monkey work get peanuts (as they fairly should get since that is the market rate).

Either be a part of the future or get out of the way for those of us who want to make it. Being a part of the future means being your own boss if you don't like your wage. And getting out of the way means if we are being our own boss stay the hell out of our life and our finances.

reply to post by gncnew


It's Joe the Plumber all over again.
Lets just "spread the wealth".
We all know what he is up to.

What we effectively have is a mail clerk pretending to be CEO. What type of blather would you expect?

The majority of the population has been swindled and hoodwinked, and had hooked their personal desires into the empty psychobabble of non-specific statements of 'change' and 'hope'. Meant entirely different things to the speaker and the listener. Fortunately some of the spiraling-eyed believers have begun to see the reality of someone so totally unqualified running the country, along with a pack of lieutenants who understand that 'change' means undermining the established American way of life.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


We have to create a society where the job is a right not a privilege. Or where the concept of the job is not even necessary because every body will be fed and housed for the minimum and so work is part of the joy like an extracurricular activity. I'm dreaming but it will become a reality.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

ETA: you are right. American comfort has come at the cost of having our boot on the back of the third worlds' neck.

I totally don't see it quite this way. There was plenty of sweat shed by the American worker. When a lot of capital was accumulated due to that effort, it (the capital) went to greener pastures. That's not serving our people at all.

There must have been some mistake here, or maybe it's just more of the "opposite of truth" strategy which has become the mainstream of the right wing philosophy.

I believe that the president's statement would more than likely be found in the column labeled; "Truthful Statements For $500 Please." The OP, on the other hand, would definitely qualify as suitable to be categorized under "Idiotic Statements for $500 Please." Something that he quite clearly demonstrated in his spelling of the word Idiotic. See what I mean by "opposite of truth?" In the very breath that they use to accuse someone else of being "Idiodic," they can't help but expose their own ignorance.

I'm not in the practice of pointing out spelling errors but if you're going to call someone an idiot, the least one could do is to spell it correctly.

I love this thread.

Both sides arguing over who's 'more correct' in their ideas and ideals.

I'll just say that I believe that if an employee knows they have some stake in how well their employer does they'll work harder and be happier for it. Where you're forced into a situation that regardless of hard you do or don't work has no effect on your paycheck is when you'll see the greatest problems arise.

"I don't have to put forth an effort because I'll still get paid."
"No matter how hard I work, I get paid the same."

To simply say that employers shouldn't care about the amount of money or benefits their employees recieve is asinine. If you're working a sh*t job you'll do a sh*t job. There's no incentive there. If you give people tangible benefits to working hard they will work harder.

With the exception of a very few .com companies the employee morale does NOT correlate to a profitable business.

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by galadofwarthethird

 

We have to create a society where the job is a right not a privilege. Or where the concept of the job is not even necessary because every body will be fed and housed for the minimum and so work is part of the joy like an extracurricular activity. I'm dreaming but it will become a reality.

You have a dream and its the master-slave relationship where government is the master and people who are unhappy with their wage and start their own company are the slaves. When you say "a job is a right" what you mean is "forcing business people who do not wish to hire you into hiring you" is a right. How is it your right to treat me like a punching bag and control me any way you wish (if I'm a business-person) a right?

Do as you wish so long as you are not harming others. Taking away a business-person's money and giving it to an "employee" they don't even want but are forced to hire is a financial damage to that business person. I strongly suggest you re-thing the ethics of taking other people's money without their permission and controlling people by force who are not interested in you controlling them.

Charity workers help people, and help people well. Government workers simply control people, and are bad at it.

Originally posted by links234
I love this thread.

Both sides arguing over who's 'more correct' in their ideas and ideals.

I'll just say that I believe that if an employee knows they have some stake in how well their employer does they'll work harder and be happier for it. Where you're forced into a situation that regardless of hard you do or don't work has no effect on your paycheck is when you'll see the greatest problems arise.

In a large company, you are likely not going to have any perceivable effect on the company on lower levels of operation because the stockholders are looking at numbers rounded to the nearest million. Even the manager of a big-box store may not make a difference. However, each employee can control how good their immediate supervisor(s) look in many cases. It is a much better career move to focus on improving your supervisor's performance review rather than improving your company in general which in many cases will just piss of your supervisor because you are not doing things the way he wants it, which in general are in turn done the way your supervisors's supervisor wants it, causing improving your supervisor to "look bad" and therefore you to look bad in your supervisor's eyes.

In fact, the very last thing you want to do in a large corporation *in many job positions* is to care how much money your department wastes or how to improve their profitability, because in many job positions your supervisor doesn't care, and if your supervisor doesn't care then you probably are not making him look any better by improving the companies profitability. And as long as you are being paid your market-rate wage their is therefore no reason for you to care either, as its just a large corporation and therefore who cares.

In other words, working hard is one strategy to move up, but if you are working hard at doing something your supervisor doesn't care about (which in many cases is improving profitability of the company) then it's just a wasted effort.

That leads me back to my main point. You say that employees who have stake in their company will improve. So not only do employees have a negligible impact on profits, even such impacts may actually hurt them in the long-run when their supervisors are not interested in the same or simply don't like their ideas in general.

But most of all I have hired employees. In the past I would offer a stake in the company in replacement of a fraction of their pay. Not a single taker... EVER. What does that tell you? Hopefully that communism is a scam beyond belief because workers in the real world most certainly couldn't care less about a stake in the company they work for when it comes down to it. And thats okay, because there is nothing wrong with the system where worker's are simply given their market rate. In fact it works wonders when the government just stays out of it.

reply to post by Sphota


I am of the same mind as you. People complain about low-skill workers demanding a fair minimum wage and essentially use the argument that they should be out looking for a better job. But if everybody went to college and worked in a high-skilled career, who the hell would make our burgers, clean our homes/cars, care for our children, mow our lawns, empty our bed pans in the hospital, etc. We need these people. They do for us what we chose to not do for OURSELVES. They deserve to be able to live a comfortable life for providing services that the rest of us chose not to do ourselves. Why do we not chose to do them? Because we they don't pay enough and you get treated like crap. That should tell you something right there.

Of course the person who makes your burger shouldn't be paid the same as the person managing them, but why does the gap have to be so wide? Isn't the burger-makers job just as valuable as the manager's? Instead, the burger makers contribution is taken for granted for the benefit of profits. There would be no profits if there were no burger maker. I think this is what Obama was trying to say.

These corporate fat cats take for granted the work of their non-skilled laborers. They reap the profits while those non-skilled laborers are taking one hour bus rides just to make it to work everyday so they can pay rent on their crappy apartment, pay the ridiculously high utility bills, and MAYBE put a decent meal on the table. Maybe even some red meat for a change (they hope). They drag themselves out of their crappy house everyday to bust their butts so some guy in a high-rise building wearing a suit that costs more than they make in a year can reap the profits. These fat cats have more money than they could EVER spend in 3 lifetimes. Are some of these people saying that its unfair to ask them to spare a couple extra million to raise wages to show that they appreciate the work of those who helped get them those billions? Or does it not matter because there will always be someone else willing to do the job since they probably were caught in a perpetual cycle of poverty for maybe even generations. Let's face it, the poor like to pop out them kids. I guess it's all about supply and demand, right? When there's more supply than demand, the prices (compensating wages) go down.

I think I get it now....