Obama Vs. Boeing

[acemona]

Do you agree with it?

 

I don't think there is any questions that when unemployment is high, companies can hire you at whatever they see fit. It is also obvious that with a global economy employers are going where they can find the cheapest labor (i.e. 70 cents an hour). I think it is playing out before us right now. Unions protected workers from the notion for many years, but they can't protect US workers from overseas workers.

 

FWIW Marx did not agree with the law and actually attacked it in some of his writings.

[woodsrider]

I don't think there is any questions that when unemployment is high, companies can hire you at whatever they see fit. It is also obvious that with a global economy employers are going where they can find the cheapest labor (i.e. 70 cents an hour). I think it is playing out before us right now. Unions protected workers from the notion for many years, but they can't protect US workers from overseas workers.

 

FWIW Marx did not agree with the law and actually attacked it in some of his writings.

 

I actually disagree with you on your first statement. I have several customers that are having a hard time finding workers. They haven't dropped their wages and are in fact paying higher wages to try and get workers to apply. My company has hired for several different positions in the last year and have struggled getting much response.

[acemona]

I actually disagree with you on your first statement. I have several customers that are having a hard time finding workers. They haven't dropped their wages and are in fact paying higher wages to try and get workers to apply. My company has hired for several different positions in the last year and have struggled getting much response.

 

I guess that 9% unemployment number is just wrong. My bad.

[woodsrider]

I guess that 9% unemployment number is just wrong. My bad.

 

You completely missed my point.

[acemona]

You completely missed my point.

 

Maybe I did miss your point, but what I thought you were saying is that you have one example in this huge economy that we have, therefore the theory must be wrong. If that was not what you were saying, then yes, I did miss your point.

 

My point is that the Iron Law of Wages has less bearing on US workers because of Unions. Other companies (example above) know that to get good workers they too must provide benefits. The fact that they provide benefits in a non-union setting simply goes to show how union shops affect the overall economy. Were there not unions (and other regulations), companies would not out of the kindness of their heart offer the benefits that they do. We see now that companies go where they can pay the lowest wage even for educated workers.

[75center]

Union membership doesn't have the impact you think it does. Not when it's just over 10% of the workforce. Plus, it's restricted in the number of occupations it represents.

[woodsrider]

Maybe I did miss your point, but what I thought you were saying is that you have one example in this huge economy that we have, therefore the theory must be wrong. If that was not what you were saying, then yes, I did miss your point.

 

My point is that the Iron Law of Wages has less bearing on US workers because of Unions. Other companies (example above) know that to get good workers they too must provide benefits. The fact that they provide benefits in a non-union setting simply goes to show how union shops affect the overall economy. Were there not unions (and other regulations), companies would not out of the kindness of their heart offer the benefits that they do. We see now that companies go where they can pay the lowest wage even for educated workers.

Yeah, that was my point that one company in this huge economy should be the rule.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding Iron Law of Wages. My understanding of it is that when there are more workers then jobs then companies won't pay as much.

[acemona]

Yeah, that was my point that one company in this huge economy should be the rule.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding Iron Law of Wages. My understanding of it is that when there are more workers then jobs then companies won't pay as much.

 

That is the gist but you have oversimplified. Essentially it says that left unfettered employers will take wages down to the subsistence level, not below because then workers wouldn't work. Our employers are not left unfettered in our country, but they are unfettered to go elsewhere.

[woodsrider]

That is the gist but you have oversimplified. Essentially it says that left unfettered employers will take wages down to the subsistence level, not below because then workers wouldn't work. Our employers are not left unfettered in our country, but they are unfettered to go elsewhere.

 

They will take wages down to the subsistence level if the supply of workers is greater then the jobs available. Going to other countries to find cheaper wages doesn't apply in my opinion because it's not apples to apples. The fact its crap. Wages havent declined in this country and chinesse workers are demanding more pay. It's no where close to te level in most countries but it is going up.

[Hatz]

They will take wages down to the subsistence level if the supply of workers is greater then the jobs available. Going to other countries to find cheaper wages doesn't apply in my opinion because it's not apples to apples. The fact its crap. Wages havent declined in this country and chinesse workers are demanding more pay. It's no where close to te level in most countries but it is going up.

 

Talked to someone yesterday who married a man from El Salvador and still has family there. I asked about the work scene and she told me that many textiles from the US have resettled there. They have employees making maybe $3 an hour for the same job that here in Martinsville paid $12 or better. Over the last 9 years our greatest influx of industry has been "call centers" and they only pay $8 per hour. So to say that American wages haven't changed is maybe not exactly true.

[75center]

With the global market conditions companies have little choice but to take their payrolls out of the country. The US consumer will not pay the premium for american made products.

[acemona]

With the global market conditions companies have little choice but to take their payrolls out of the country. The US consumer will not pay the premium for american made products.

 

I agree. The companies must search for the bottom line, so they will search for the lowest possible wage. I also agree that our wages haven't changed, we've simply lost jobs to other countries because it is now a global economy. At some point, 100 years from now, those countries will do what we had to do in the early 1900s.

[woodsrider]

Talked to someone yesterday who married a man from El Salvador and still has family there. I asked about the work scene and she told me that many textiles from the US have resettled there. They have employees making maybe $3 an hour for the same job that here in Martinsville paid $12 or better. Over the last 9 years our greatest influx of industry has been "call centers" and they only pay $8 per hour. So to say that American wages haven't changed is maybe not exactly true.

 

Your right they've gone up. You can't compare a manufacturing job to a call center job and say pay has gone down because of it.

[woodsrider]

I agree. The companies must search for the bottom line, so they will search for the lowest possible wage. I also agree that our wages haven't changed, we've simply lost jobs to other countries because it is now a global economy. At some point, 100 years from now, those countries will do what we had to do in the early 1900s.

 

If that were true on manufacturing would be left in this country. Toyota would have opened in Mexico instead of Georgetown.

[PurplePride92]

If that were true on manufacturing would be left in this country. Toyota would have opened in Mexico instead of Georgetown.

 

Who's to say that if business gets really bad for Toyota that Georgetown wouldn't close and a plant would open in another country? That is definitely possible.