Union pushes Apple for better treatment of campus security guards

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 98
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

     

    Aside from that, let's not be ignorant of economics. You can pay everyone $15, $20, $80 per hour and all it will do is raise the cost of providing the goods or services. Making $15/hr to watch a CCTV or sack groceries means nothing when milk cost $5 gallon! 


     

    Yes, that's true. You can't increase people's standard of living by increasing their pay, because if there's still the same number of goods in the economy, the prices of them will just be bid up until everyone has the same amount of stuff they always had.

     

    The only way to really/physically increase people's standing of living is to increase the number of goods in the economy. That means becoming more efficient at making goods. When Tim Cook makes Apple more efficient, such that they can produce 10 iPads for the same effort it used to take to make 5, he does more for people's standard of living than any union boss.

  • Reply 82 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

     

    Yes, that's true. You can't increase people's standard of living by increasing their pay, because if there's still the same number of goods in the economy, the prices of them will just be bid up until everyone has the same amount of stuff they always had.

     

    The only way to really/physically increase people's standing of living is to increase the number of goods in the economy. That means becoming more efficient at making goods. When Tim Cook makes Apple more efficient, such that they can produce 10 iPads for the same effort it used to take to make 5, he does more for people's standard of living than any union boss.




    Yes, but we must understand there will always be entry level jobs, and jobs that don't pay well, as there will always be high paying jobs. That's how it is suppose to work. 

  • Reply 83 of 98
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

     



    Yes, but we must understand there will always be entry level jobs, and jobs that don't pay well, as there will always be high paying jobs. That's how it is suppose to work. 




    Yes, it's a price signal to young people about which industry they should try to get in to. "Where society needs them"

  • Reply 84 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

     



    Yes, but we must understand there will always be entry level jobs, and jobs that don't pay well, as there will always be high paying jobs. That's how it is suppose to work. 




    A goot point and important distinction, as much as some would like to pervert  the "we are created equal" portion of the US Constitution, we are not all equal nor does this passage imply that we should have equal outcomes. Some simply lack the mental capacity, motivation, or determination to learn the skills necessary to be a successful Aeronautical engineer, myself included. I can't find it at the moment, however Mike Rowe wrote a fantastic response to a fan who was disgruntled with Mr. Rowe's condemnation of the advice "follow your passion". As if simply being passionate about something will inevitably make you successful at it.

     

    It is every individuals responsibility to understand their own strengths and weaknesses and to determine what they are able to do well. Like Mr. Rowe's point, I am amazed each year when American idol starts up and there are thousands upon thousands of people who blindly "follow their passion" and with serious delusion think they are going to be a famous singer someday. I'm not saying there aren't talented people who audition for the show. I'm talking about the many more people who genuinely believe they are talented and can sing, and they are completely tone deaf. The point is if you start out with the assumption that you deserve to be some rich CEO, you more than likely are never going to get there.

     

    -PopinFRESH

    P.S. minimum wage is one of the most destructive things for people with lower income.

  • Reply 85 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

     

    Yes, that's true. You can't increase people's standard of living by increasing their pay, because if there's still the same number of goods in the economy, the prices of them will just be bid up until everyone has the same amount of stuff they always had.

     

    The only way to really/physically increase people's standing of living is to increase the number of goods in the economy. That means becoming more efficient at making goods. When Tim Cook makes Apple more efficient, such that they can produce 10 iPads for the same effort it used to take to make 5, he does more for people's standard of living than any union boss.


    And yet, productivity across all industries is at its highest ever, as are corporate profits, but real wages for unskilled workers have declined.  Which leads us to believe that there is plenty of room for bottom level wages to rise, but no industry pressure.  Textbook market failure.

  • Reply 86 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

     

    Yes, that's true. You can't increase people's standard of living by increasing their pay, because if there's still the same number of goods in the economy, the prices of them will just be bid up until everyone has the same amount of stuff they always had.

     

    The only way to really/physically increase people's standing of living is to increase the number of goods in the economy. That means becoming more efficient at making goods. When Tim Cook makes Apple more efficient, such that they can produce 10 iPads for the same effort it used to take to make 5, he does more for people's standard of living than any union boss.




    This isn't entirely correct, however your general point is well received. There are many economic shocks that can "increase the size of the pie" besides simply becoming more efficient at producing goods, although that is a pretty broad point. There are numerous ways of becoming more efficient, such as a technological advancement in production methods or discovering a large amount of a key natural resource. Again, the general point is that in order to actually improve the median quality of life you must expand the size of the pie (market), and I completely agree.

     

    -PopinFRESH

  • Reply 87 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

     

    And yet, productivity across all industries is at its highest ever, as are corporate profits, but real wages for unskilled workers have declined.  Which leads us to believe that there is plenty of room for bottom level wages to rise, but no industry pressure.  Textbook market failure.




    You mean not enough collusion to artificially increase wages above their market value.

     

    -PopinFRESH

  • Reply 88 of 98
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    popinfresh wrote: »

    You mean not enough collusion to artificially increase wages above their market value.

    -PopinFRESH

    If the executives can do it then why not them?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/fortune-500-ceo-vs-worker-pay-2014-6
  • Reply 89 of 98
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    popinfresh wrote: »
    in order to actually improve the median quality of life you must expand the size of the pie (market)

    Or figure out how to distribute it more evenly so that it's not all weighted towards a tiny minority. The top 10% of people in the US own 75% of all the assets. If they owned 30% and 45% of the assets went to the other 90% of people, the assets of the other 90% would go up nearly 3x. Not that the distribution would be even but increasing the market doesn't really help if the distribution is way off because it stays way off.
    popinfresh wrote:
    minimum wage is one of the most destructive things for people with lower income.

    It's destructive because without it they would have an even lower income? If an employer lowers their salary to half then they have to double their working hours to make the same income. How is that constructive to improving their quality of life?
  • Reply 90 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PopinFRESH View Post

     



    You mean not enough collusion to artificially increase wages above their market value.

     

    -PopinFRESH


    Rather beyond the scope of my point, but ok...

     

    Business is allowed to be organised, but labour isn't?  Your "collusion" works both ways.

  • Reply 91 of 98
    crowley wrote: »
    And yet, productivity across all industries is at its highest ever, as are corporate profits, but real wages for unskilled workers have declined.  Which leads us to believe that there is plenty of room for bottom level wages to rise, but no industry pressure.  Textbook market failure.

    When it comes to economic matters, look at the basics, starting with money itself.

    The Federal Resrrve's mission includes controlingl the money supply, setting interest rates and attempting to achieve a goal of full employment, the combination of which is impossible.

    Joe Sixpack gets the brunt of these misguided policies because most people have almost no savings and are consequently a victim today of the Fed "printing money", or flooding markets and lenders with almost "free" cash, which has radically devalued the dollar. When the dollar is worth less, prices appear to rise and those consumers with no savings or investments are crushed.

    But it doesn't stop there. Demicrats took advantage of their political majority (at the time) and rammed the ACA through during these wobbly economic times. Even Chuck Schumer now admits as much:

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/31310798-452/a-dem-admits-they-blew-it.html#.VHssqpY77CR

    All of this has rolled downhill onto those least capable of avoiding the resultant economic hardships... In other words, none of this has anything to do with "market failure", it has everything to do with political meddling and "best intentions" gone horribly wrong.
  • Reply 92 of 98
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    The Federal Resrrve's mission includes controlingl the money supply, setting interest rates and attempting to achieve a goal of full employment, the combination of which is impossible.

    Joe Sixpack gets the brunt of these misguided policies because most people have almost no savings and are consequently a victim today of the Fed "printing money", or flooding markets and lenders with almost "free" cash, which has radically devalued the dollar. When the dollar is worth less, prices appear to rise and those consumers with no savings or investments are crushed.

    In other words, none of this has anything to do with "market failure", it has everything to do with political meddling and "best intentions" gone horribly wrong.

    The devaluing of currency would affect the people at the top as well as the people at the bottom and let's not forget that the problems were initially caused by the under-regulation in the finance sector, any subsequent action by the government was to repair damage caused by the private sector. There's a news reporter here venting about the recent market rigging by multiple banks:


    [VIDEO]


    The banks were asking not to be regulated nor have their actions made criminal offences and yet years after their initial failings, they're still doing things they shouldn't. You'd say the same things they would - keep government out, let the market sort itself out. Then when it doesn't sort itself you say that it's clearly the government's fault for deregulating them.

    The current employment problems are a direct result of people in the finance sector acting under a freer market. Businesses and banks are much more cautious about lending and employing.
  • Reply 93 of 98
    Marvin wrote: »
    The devaluing of currency would affect the people at the top as well as the people at the bottom and let's not forget that the problems were initially caused by the under-regulation in the finance sector, any subsequent action by the government was to repair damage caused by the private sector. There's a news reporter here venting about the recent market rigging by multiple banks:


    [VIDEO]


    The banks were asking not to be regulated nor have their actions made criminal offences and yet years after their initial failings, they're still doing things they shouldn't. You'd say the same things they would - keep government out, let the market sort itself out. Then when it doesn't sort itself you say that it's clearly the government's fault for deregulating them.

    The current employment problems are a direct result of people in the finance sector acting under a freer market. Businesses and banks are much more cautious about lending and employing.

    Are you seriously suggesting the currency hasn't been devalued, Marvin?

    Those invested in the stock market have bounced back just fine. Those not in the stock market have seen their money able to buy less and less. There is no argument about this. I honestly wonder when you write these things.

    Here's a politically neutral source for you to read: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/16-trillion-and-deeper-in-debt-how-to-profit-from-a-dying-dollar/
  • Reply 94 of 98
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    Are you seriously suggesting the currency hasn't been devalued?

    Nope, I'm just saying it was caused by the government's response to the failure of the free market's ability to regulate itself. A response that was sought by the perpetrators, looking out for their self-interest at the expense of everyone else. The fault and blame lies with the free market, this is undeniable. Even if the government had allowed the collapse of major investment banks, the fault would still be with the banks but the fallout would have been far worse.
    Those invested in the stock market have bounced back just fine. Those not in the stock market have seen their money but less and less. There is no argument about this.

    I'm not arguing that, I agree with that but the stock market is not US currency. The stock market is a magical place where if the dollar is 10% lower, you can magic up a company value to make up the loss. Tesla is worth over $30b, where's the cash? There is no hard currency involved there.

    When you compare the poor and rich, you are comparing liquid cash that can be spent immediately to a volatile stock asset. They put dollar values on each but one is much more volatile than the other and the stock values are future assessments of worth, low-end workers get a present assessment of worth. To say one is up while the other is down is meaningless because the value given to an employee is a judgement made by the employer of what they can afford to offer at the time they want the job filled. The value given to a stock is a judgement made by multiple traders of the expected future performance of a company. If the company reaches those expectations then salary rises will be expected to follow on but that doesn't necessarily happen.
  • Reply 96 of 98
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

     

    And yet, productivity across all industries is at its highest ever, as are corporate profits, but real wages for unskilled workers have declined.  Which leads us to believe that there is plenty of room for bottom level wages to rise, but no industry pressure.  Textbook market failure.


     

    An efficiency/productivity gain just frees up resources. Some process that used to cost $200 now costs $100, so the company now has $100 to spend on something else. It's up to management to decide what. A pay increase for workers and/or management, back to the shareholders, into R&D?

     

    What would make them choose a pay increase for low skilled workers is if they can't hire enough of the kind of worker they need at the wages they're currently offering. And I don't think that's an unrealistic scenario, even with lots of unskilled workers out there. 

     

    There are thousands of buildings in a given city and every one needs cleaners and guards and cafeteria staff and a maintenance man and maybe a parking attendent and door man. And each company tenanted inside needs a receptionist. And there are lots of couples who need someone to mind the kids and clean the house while they're at work. So demand is not zero. 

     

    To increase demand for low skilled workers you don't need some kind of fundamental systemic reform, all you need is for a lot of new companies to be opening (because every company needs these kind of jobs whether they like it or not). In other words you need an entrepreneurial population. People who are not satisfied to just "have a job" but want to own a business as well. That certainly used to be true of the US and wages rose for all for many years. If wages have been stagnant for a while maybe something has happened to what economists call people's "animal spirits." Or maybe it's not the people, they are just over-regulated. How big is the US Code now? But certainly it's possible for unskilled wages to rise under capitalism as it has happened in the past, so I wouldn't blame the system as such.

     

    And overall, it's a bit unjust to blame capitalism for stagnant wages ("textbook market failure"). I mean humanity struggled on for thousands of years with virtually no increase in standard of living, it was only the advent of capitalism and labour saving machinery and the industrial revolution that living standards began to rise at all.

  • Reply 97 of 98
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator

    This is written by someone who is trying to promote going back to a gold standard. I'm with you on the whole inflation problem, I think it needs to be sorted out. The gold standard might not work though. New discoveries of gold will fluctuate the value and the price of gold can be manipulated.

    Say that there's 175k tonnes of gold and it's valued at $50m per tonne, that's $8.75t (roughly current values of gold and known gold reserves). The following site says M0 actual physical currency is ~$5t:

    http://gizmodo.com/5995301/how-much-money-is-there-on-earth
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_(currency)

    If M0 currency was gold instead of fiat currency, would that change the problem? You still need a convenient mechanism to do transactions so gold has to be abstracted and would not have a fixed relationship to whatever was used e.g dollar, its value would be linked to supply and demand like any other asset and that value would then have a knock-on effect to any currency based on it. If you try to artificially fix the value at a certain point in time then you don't need gold in the first place, you just make a decision to have a fixed amount of currency in circulation.

    The core problem that we have is debt. You can see the amounts of leveraged assets in the above links far exceed the base currency. That's where all of the problems are stemming from and why that reporter in the earlier video was annoyed at the banks again. They have been given control over all kinds of debt and they're manipulating them for their own benefit. This was from following your ideology in harnessing people's inherent motivation to look out for themselves and using it as a regulatory mechanism. What happened was that the banks lied to their own clients and shareholders about the quality of the debts they carried by complicating how they were rated. When people couldn't pay back the loans, the whole thing collapsed requiring an influx of new currency because everyone is tied in with it, primarily from housing as it's the biggest debt people typically carry. They were also colluding rather than competing in order to rig the interest rates - just because you make a market free doesn't mean the people involved in it will compete with each other if they can make more gains by collusion. And it can't be prevented because the collusion was happening at secret events with word of mouth exchanges.

    That could still happen with a gold standard because there would still be another level of currency tied to the gold. Loans would still be issued, which can be valued far more than the base currency. Lehman was leveraging at 30:1 when they collapsed. The way they make it work is by charging interest on the loan and they never need to validate the leveraged assets because they just keep loaning to more people. JP Morgan says their investment bank assets in 2012 were $18.8 trillion. That's one company when all of the world's M0 currency is ~$5t.

    It used to be illegal to do that because you could keep loaning out unlimited money that you don't have but now they just put a cap on it on the understanding that currency is a facilitator of trade and that valuable assets develop over time. Debt acts as incentive to keep producing.

    This is where it affects the people at the bottom more because they all have loans and debts to pay back and when the economy recovers, the banks put the interest rates back up. The people at the top don't have debts to pay, they earn interest and gains on savings and investments and the irony is that the profits and interest is being paid by the people at the bottom. This causes a diverging income distribution.

    Suggested solutions about moving to a gold standard, Bitcoins or just getting the government out of the way don't tackle this issue at all. I think it's time that the government took control of the finance industry and instead of the interest payments on debt going to a private company, it would go to cover the government's own costs, which lowers taxes for everyone. That would also give them the freedom to implement a transaction tax and could eliminate all other forms of taxation including income tax, which helps with lower-end wages. They'd be in control of leveraging too.
  • Reply 98 of 98
    gtbuzzgtbuzz Posts: 129member

    I would not give Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton the time of day.  They are well known trouble makers and most of us know it.

Sign In or Register to comment.