Economic efficiency is an important goal but it is not the only important public policy. There is also the question of forcing employers to bear the full costs of employment and not passing it on to society.
Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Economic efficiency is an important goal but it is not the only important public policy. There is also the question of forcing employers to bear the full costs of employment and not passing it on to society.
If you eliminate all the labor laws then employers would be happy to revert back to that era.
Come on, man. In today's hyper sensitive, digitally connected world, that wouldn't happen. The moment a company tried to pull any such shenanigans it would be publicly shamed, ostracized and boycotted until dead.
LOL, yeah, companies cant even sponsor the improper website lest you have an army of twitter jackals on your ass, but supposedly they are going to let child labor, where people work 16 hours for pennies a day fly in america..
The companies (e.g. Nike) that manufacture their stuff overseas in our sensitive, digitally connected world using low-paid child labor with 16 hour days don't seem to have that problem. Despite the regularly documenting of the problems their sales just keep going up. Don't see much publicly shaming, ostracizing and boycotting as iPhone assemblers jump to their deaths.
Except for U.S. labor laws, these companies would be happy to re-import these practices back to America.
Dude, i really like you so i hope the arguments dont come across as me being an asshole, i appreciate the fact that while we are conservatives/libertarians we disagree on certain things.
But with that said you are dead wrong on this, think of what you are saying, "increasing minimum wage forces employers to make changes in equipment"
Well what is the easiest piece of equipment to jettison if the price per hour doubles?
When they are increasing efficiency because wages went up, its not because they want to pay more people higher wages, its because they want to eliminate the person whose costing them more.
They are innovating for the sole purpose of cutting cost, and if you make that person cost more while the machine costs less guess who ends up on the chopping block?
But with that said you are dead wrong on this, think of what you are saying, "increasing minimum wage forces employers to make changes in equipment"
Well what is the easiest piece of equipment to jettison if the price per hour doubles?
When they are increasing efficiency because wages went up, its not because they want to pay more people higher wages, its because they want to eliminate the person whose costing them more.
They are innovating for the sole purpose of cutting cost, and if you make that person cost more while the machine costs less guess who ends up on the chopping block?
Last edited:
Yes I have. They and the US have automated a lot. However, there is still a lot of manufacturing that is done with labor. And it's not just direct labor that's cheaper. Indirect too (like warehouse operators). A factory in Mexico or china runs about 25 dollars of burden vs 70 in the US/Europe.
To the original point: why make that 85 or 100?
We disagree on a number of things, and you come across very politely as we have discussions -- and I very much appreciate that.
There are numerous people in this forum that I disagree with on both the left and the right on various topics. I try to treat everyone politely and welcome when folks are civil in response.
In my opinion, the scenario where a company jettisons staff as the price per hour doubles is an example of a company that was doomed to fail anyway. Obviously they failed to do any planning to cut costs via equipment upgrades, innovation, or any other method. Their only response is to fire the guy making the widgets using the same machinery put in place thirty years ago using the same processes/methods. The companies planning did not extend to multiple ways of cutting costs, improving productivity, or training the worker in new processes (making them more skilled and worth hire pay). Obviously the company did not perform any scenario planning over time accounting for various cost inputs and their impact on pricing & revenue.
In my opinion, the scenario where a company jettisons staff as the price per hour doubles is an example of a company that was doomed to fail anyway.
So are walmart and mcdicks failing as they move to automation, and eliminate cashiers? How bout banks when they replace a teller with an ATM.?
So are walmart and mcdicks failing as they move to automation, and eliminate cashiers? How bout banks when they replace a teller with an ATM.?
The survivors in the U.S. have automated a lot. Either they strategically and wisely planned their transition. Or they were forced into it in order to compete and had the necessary cash to survive the forced market transition.
The new warehouse (being put forward by Amazon and others) involves all robots and minimal humans. Amazon is a good example of a company who currently treats employees in their warehouses like automated robots with strict productivity criteria, minimal breaks, and poor workplace treatment. You can read many stories about this in the press.