Redshirt:Ford did what he did because it was visionary. It was
good/responsible capitalism. It was a win-win. He didn't have to do it but
UtahBlueDevil: Where do you get your facts? There is about $100 worth of raw
material in a car. Where does the rest of the cost come from? I understand
capital is in there, but??? If it is capital then the real value of a car then
comes from the knowledge and genius that created, designed, built, and financed
that capital. This is what has made the USA great, not its labor. Anything
that hinders capital growth hinders our greatness. High punitive taxes that
take from the creators of capital and give to labor hinders our greatness.Why are we stuck in an economic malaise? Risk takers aren't willing
to take risk in our current political environment. Also, there are too few risk
takers, thinkers, etc. People in America feel entitled to a "living
wage". Where is the incentive to excel in school or Get a degree in the
sciences and engineering fields when I am entitled and shouldn't have to
really "work" for it? The constitutional protection of HUMAN GENIUS and
RISK taking is what makes and will make us great again. Get POLITICS out of the
way and let us go.
Redshirt - here is a number for you to chew on - 10%. That is the lobor cost
for the average car. So say you take the average car sold in the US which
sells for $30,000.... labor represents $3,000 of that cost. Lets take the
wildest estimate and say that unionized labour was 50% percent more expensive
than non-union labor (which we all know isn't the case but it makes the
math east). So in this best case scenario... car cost would come down to
$28,500.In the real world, that difference is much more muted...
less than $1,000 per car.So to your comment about Ford and the
expense of his cars - the difference really wouldn't be that much. He
could even double the wages, and it would really only make a modest change in
cost. The fact is he only paid the $5 a day living wage for a short time and
got into very violent battles with the unions (see battle of the overpass)...
and only left leadership after Edsels death because Ford was doing so poorly.It is an interesting story... worth some study.
Most consumers are workers.Most workers spend all their income
sooner rather than later. More workers or higher pay produces more
spending. More spending creates a better economy and more profits.
More profits creates more jobs. etc. etc. etc. Low wages produce low economy and low profits. low profits means
job loss.low employment means low profits. etc. etc.
To "Howard Beal" you also realize that Henry Ford paid his employees so
well at a time before the UAW. Can you imagine how much a Ford would cost if
they had maintained the high wages?
So Shaun, let me get this straight...It is very bad when a single shop has both
union and non-union workers in it because the union members are paying all the
bills (union dues) while all the workers (including the non-union, non-dues
paying workers) reap the benefits.Giving workers a choice will
certainly end up in situations like this and that is totally unacceptable to
liberal, pro-union individuals like yourself.My only question is:
How is that situation any different than the "tax the rich" mantra of
the left, where some of the people pay all the taxes while everyone enjoys the
@Mountainman... once again... on point 3 - support this statement with a
reference to something please.Actually, Charles has some good points
here... except he slips right back into conservative talking points where he
states;"Volkswagen to Samsung — began to overtake American
industry that was saddled with protected, inflated, relatively uncompetitive
wages, benefits and work rules."Ummm.. no. Volkswagen is not
only very heavily unionized, but both VW and Samsung are companies that live and
thrive in what many conservatives call socialist countries where every employee
is given generous health and retirement benefits. This justification of
anti-union chatter is the biggest lie, and the weakest argument.I
personally am in favor of right-to-work states. I worked my way through
undergraduate school at UPS, as a Teamster, unloading trucks while most everyone
else slept. But I think employees should have the right to choose if they want
representation or not. As I saw one GM worker who was a union guy state when
this law passed, this will make the unions have to be better at adding value for
employees and employers.... otherwise employees will not hand over their money
to them. This is all goodness.
3 reasons why unions are declining in the US: #1:Globalization is and will
continue to make private sector unions obsolete. Consumers can and are
purchasing products from abroad cheaper than domestic union made goods. In other
words, consumers are voting with their wallets and union produced goods are
losing their customers. #2:In the case of public sector
unions,(teacher's firefighters, police) taxpayers are voting against them
as per Wisconsin, Michigan and other states because taxpayers can not fund their
benefits which in most cases are better than the taxpayers receive while the
services they provide is declining (student test scores)3:There is
also the ugly but seldom discussed issue of the "stimulus" where the
public was told we ere spending nearly a $ trillion for "shovel ready
jobs" Instead, the vast majority of the money was given by Obama and the
Democrats to public unions members so they didn't lose their jobs while
many other private sector people did. Then to make matters worse, unions then
gave the Democrats huge cash donations for the re-election of union friendly
Democrats= money laundering at its best!
So why did Henry Ford pay his employees so well, almost twice the amount of
other factory workers and competing businesses. It is because he knew
something--if he paid his employees enough they might buy cars instead of making
them for the uber-rich only. I'm not sure what economic theory this fits
in, but it seemed pretty smart for the employer and the employee.
Does a union generate money? Does getting more money for the employees mean
that the company makes more money? Does having a union guarantee that people
will buy the product? Does having a union mean that the product is superior?Before a union can get higher wages, the company has to have more money
to pay those employees. The company has to have a service or a product that
people are willing to buy at a higher price or be willing to buy in greater
quantity.Hostess showed what happens when a union demands that
non-existent profits be paid to workers whose value is less than they are
already being paid.There is no magic that enables a union to
transfer wealth from the "rich guy" to the "worker".Nobody is willing to buy overpriced products - look at the garment industry.
Union members shop at WalMart, just like everybody else. They are not loyal to
their fellow members in other industries. They buy at the cheapest price, just
like most of us.
This all boils down to theories of economics. The supply side thoery of
economics keeps it's erronious grasp on the wealthy simply because it fits
thier own short term, myopic interests.If you want a brilliant
explanation of labor, land and capitol, you should read "Progress and
Poverty" by Henry George.
There is no such thing as the right to work. Somehow that part of humanity
towards humans never got into the Constitution. If there was such a thing as a
right to work, society would have the obligation to make sure that every person
could be gainfully employed. Either by private enterprise or by the government.
When private enterprise fails to do it’s desired service to society it is
for the government to fill the gap. The government should hire
every unemployed person needing and wanting a job at a living wage. There are
millions of jobs that can be done for the welfare of the general public. The wages paid to these workers would be funded by a general tax on private
enterprise. Private enterprise, business, organized groups serving
society do so at the pleasure and according to the rules set by society. The
rules governing the distribution of wealth from business were made hundreds,
perhaps thousands of years ago, when labor was the main ingredient of all
wealth. The rules need to be brought up to date according to
To "Shaun" your example falsely paints unions to be organizations that
are out there to protect the worker.Which is better for the economy.
A non-union shop that can hire 15 people to run the shop and pay them $10/hr,
or a union shop that requires 30 people to do the same jobs and mandates $20/hr?
You will think that the union shop is the way to go. However, with the
non-union shop the goods and services can be sold for 1/4 the cost, which means
that they can do more good for the economy. The owner will be able to expand
his business faster, more people can buy his goods, which means that the
suppliers will be able to hire more people because the materials needed are in
higher demand.With union shops, costs are higher, and expansion is
slower.So, which is better for the economy, businesses that can
expand and sell more goods and services or hiring union employees that do less
with more people?
Shawn,I don't understand your logic. If a union "gets"
$30 an hour for McDonald employees, does that mean that McDonalds just opens its
piggy bank and pays that triple wage - or does it mean that McDonalds begins
charging $15 for a Big Mac? When McDonalds charges $15 for a Big Mac are YOU
going to buy one because you believe that the union has the "right" to
do that? Or, are you going to pay $15 because you think that a Big Mac is worth
every cent of $15? Or, are you going to buy your lunch somewhere else?Every dollar that businesses pay in wages is passed on to the customer. If
the customer decides that the value is less than the price charged, then that
business closes, those employees pay no taxes, and the government gets to
support those families at your expense. Look at Hostess and the 18,000 employees
that the union helped out of work.If you want a better wage, make
yourself more valuable, then you won't need a bigger baseball bat to
threaten your employer with.
Charles left out some key points. First most people do not know what right to
work really means. If you are working for a company and the employees decide to
join a union then that will still happen regradless you are in a right to work
state or not but you as an individual you still have a right to not join the
union and still work there. Which means you will not have to pay union dues.
However you will still get the benefits the union will bring, like higher wages,
better and safer working conditions, etc.Some people think this
okay, but all that will happen is it will pit union paying workers against their
fellow workers who enjoy the benefits but does not pay dues. Something that Charles also misses is people who make more can spend more. Who
honestly brings more benefit to the economy, a person making 9 a hour or an
union member in the same field making 15 a hour?Who pays more taxes
a non union or union worker?Who is more likely to have insurance and