So this is trickle down?

[CaptainObvious]

I don't disagree completely. However, the hourly worker also has the need and the right to use competetion and self interest between themselves and management. It's called negotation and works quite well when both parties have the best interest of the company at hand. The company, not the shareholders, not the banks, not some political movement, just the employees of the company, top to bottom. That's it. Everything else is a by product of that efficient negotation.
Yes, the working class has been sold out, but not out of stupidity. There is little difference between the parties when it comes to lining their pockets with corporate money. Where else do the workers have to go?

Edit: Yes, the unions have failed miserably in this practice of efficient negotation.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The purpose of capitalism is to ensure the most efficient use of resources through competition and self interest.

It has nothing to do with "stakeholders' ( a term invented by liberals to make meddling seem appropriate), the economy, jobs or anything else. Growth in the eocnomy is a side effect of efficient use of resources, self interest, ie greed, and competition.

As Pat Buchanan has observed, economic efficiency is not the only value at stake however. A government has the obligation to do what is best for its citizens. I would argue, as does Pat, that globalization and the resultant loss of manufacturing jobs is nto in our self interest, event hough it may be more efficient from an intellectual stand point.

Liberals however basically painted themselves into a corner. Through excessive regulation, litigation, taxes and unionism, they made it nearly impossible for domestic companies to be competitive. Globalization seemed a way out and the right thing to do, as it meant ceding our sovereignty to the WTO, something liberals are always eager to do. Also, the corporate statists who ran Bill Clinton saw outsourcing as a way to have their cake and eat it too.

The working class is too dumb to realize that their own champions sold them out.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I don't disagree completely. However, the hourly worker also has the need and the right to use competetion and self interest between themselves and management. It's called negotation and works quite well when both parties have the best interest of the company at hand. The company, not the shareholders, not the banks, not some political movement, just the employees of the company, top to bottom. That's it. Everything else is a by product of that efficient negotation.
Yes, the working class has been sold out, but not out of stupidity. There is little difference between the parties when it comes to lining their pockets with corporate money. Where else do the workers have to go?

Ok, back to the game. : )

Capital, when it can't find the return it wants "here", moves "there". So Labor should do the same. If CAT isn't paying what you think you should be getting in exchange for your exertions, then you should take your labor elsewhere. This compels competition for labor on the part of Capital, thus, efficiency.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Ricter:

Ok, back to the game. : )

Capital, when it can't find the return it wants "here", moves "there". So Labor should do the same. If CAT isn't paying what you think you should be getting in exchange for your exertions, then you should take your labor elsewhere. This compels competition for labor of the part of Capital, thus, efficiency.

That is not efficient for CAT or the worker in most cases. CAT is much better off retaining experienced employees and the hourly worker is better off growing within the company rather than jumping ship. Again, in most cases.
Both labor and management need to negotiate that fair wage based on the productivity and profitability of the company. More productive and profitable should mean more money for all, not just some at the top. Labor should not be gouging the company, nor should the company be exploiting labor in a tough market.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

That is not efficient for CAT or the worker in most cases. CAT is much better off retaining experienced employees and the hourly worker is better off growing within the company rather than jumping ship. Again, in most cases.
Both labor and management need to negotiate that fair wage based on the productivity and profitability of the company. More productive and profitable should mean more money for all, not just some at the top. Labor should not be gouging the company, nor should the company be exploiting labor in a tough market.

But as a STAKEHOLDER, ahem, stakeholder in CAT, I expect them to pay a competitive wage (but not one that exceeds the cost to hire new and train, of course) so that the business does not take turnover losses. As for who should be getting bigger slices of the growing pie, that has to go to the owners. Which is where I go back to the beginning, if you want to share in CAT's profitability, own CAT shares.

 

[noob_trad3r]

If Welfare/foodstamps/medicaid/section 8/etc.. were removed from the equation. I wonder if things would change.

I suspect all these federal aid programs are a form backdoor socialism for big corporations like Walmart etc..

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Ricter:

But as a STAKEHOLDER, ahem, stakeholder in CAT, I expect them to pay a competitive wage (but not one that exceeds the cost to hire new and train, of course) so that the business does not take turnover losses. As for who should be getting bigger slices of the growing pie, that has to go to the owners. Which is where I go back to the beginning, if you want to share in CAT's profitability, own CAT shares.

You're looking at it simply from a trader/investor point of view. OK, it's a trading site we're on, but I'm just looking at it from a guy on the line perspective. And that guy on the line can't afford to buy those shares if he's not making a decent wage.
I agree that ownership get's the bigger slice of the growing pie, but a bigger slice does not mean the whole pie.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

You're looking at it simply from a trader/investor point of view. OK, it's a trading site we're on, but I'm just looking at it from a guy on the line perspective. And that guy on the line can't afford to buy those shares if he's not making a decent wage.
I agree that ownership get's the bigger slice of the growing pie, but a bigger slice does not mean the whole pie.

This is about character, and the responsible choices that people should be making in life. Don't you think it is a laborer's intelligent and grown-up move to start buying stock in the company he starts working for, on the day he starts working there? I mean, we have to have the maturity to look ahead, to plan ahead. If today's laborer does not pay the price for yesterday's errors in judgement... it's moral hazard, no?

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Ricter:

This is about character, and the responsible choices that people should be making in life. Don't you think it is a laborer's intelligent and grown-up move to start buying stock in the company he starts working for, on the day he starts working there? I mean, we have to have the maturity to look ahead, to plan ahead. If today's laborer does not pay the price for yesterday's errors in judgement... it's moral hazard, no?

Depends on two things. One being, does the guy have enough money after expeses to buy anything? Secondly, depends on the company he's working for. If you're a steel worker at that piece of shit AKS, then no. If you were at Apple, well alrighty then.
I can tell you haveing spent most of my working life in manufacturing, the guys on the floor put a couple percent in a 401K and keep their fingers crossed. Sad, but true.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I don't disagree completely. However, the hourly worker also has the need and the right to use competetion and self interest between themselves and management. It's called negotation and works quite well when both parties have the best interest of the company at hand. The company, not the shareholders, not the banks, not some political movement, just the employees of the company, top to bottom. That's it. Everything else is a by product of that efficient negotation.
Yes, the working class has been sold out, but not out of stupidity. There is little difference between the parties when it comes to lining their pockets with corporate money. Where else do the workers have to go?

Edit: Yes, the unions have failed miserably in this practice of efficient negotation.

Well, now you've bought into the stakeholder argument. The shareholders own the company. Their interests are the only interests management should be concerned with in negotiations with labor. Of course, those interests may be served by peaceful labor relations and a corporate reputation as a good place to work. The idea that management's first loyalty should be to the employees is ridiculous.

 

[mrbill]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

That is not efficient for CAT or the worker in most cases. CAT is much better off retaining experienced employees and the hourly worker is better off growing within the company rather than jumping ship. Again, in most cases.
Both labor and management need to negotiate that fair wage based on the productivity and profitability of the company. More productive and profitable should mean more money for all, not just some at the top. Labor should not be gouging the company, nor should the company be exploiting labor in a tough market.

Yes, this is obvious to me as well, no pun intended. The current state of affairs in the US has gotten so bad, and so confrontational that every issue has to have sides. If you are on side A, then you must hate management, and side b must hate unions and workers.

Unions had become a similar entity as what they were originally formed to counter. Then they've been over run recently.

We need to get back to real negotiation, not based on who we voted for, but for what is best for America, the companies, and the people working.