You could say the same thing about being a CEO at most companies. You could put a monkey in front of a series of buttons labelled 'Layoffs', 'Pay Freezes', 'Benefit Cuts', 'Outsourcing', 'Acquisition of Competitor', and 'Raises for Management' and just have him punch one of the buttons each quarter.
You've never been in a position of responsibility, have you?
Driverless car hits someone or something. Who is liable? "Not me." says the passengers, "I wasn't driving." "Not me." says the manufacture "WE only made it." Insurance companies will kill the driverless car. No one is liable, no one to collect from.
People are currently run over all of the time in the absence of driverless cars. Insurance coverage will determine responsibility.
$18-$20 to drive a bus around? That's not enough? Seems to much for a zero skill job! You know exactly where you're going and do the same thing over and over and over again. I guess what they want to do is price themselves right out of the market!!! These company's could create their own service for example. Unions will literally drive a business out of business in their greed for ever more money!!! There's many examples of this.
$18-$20 to drive a bus around? That's not enough? Seems to much for a zero skill job! You know exactly where you're going and do the same thing over and over and over again. I guess what they want to do is price themselves right out of the market!!! These company's could create their own service for example. Unions will literally drive a business out of business in their greed for ever more money!!! There's many examples of this.
How's this for an example? If wages had grown with productivity the minimum wage would be at around $20 an hour.
$18-$20 to drive a bus around? That's not enough? Seems to much for a zero skill job! You know exactly where you're going and do the same thing over and over and over again. I guess what they want to do is price themselves right out of the market!!! These company's could create their own service for example. Unions will literally drive a business out of business in their greed for ever more money!!! There's many examples of this.
If these companies create their owe service who will they hire? The drivers from the company they no longer use! Every Commercial Driver License have to have special training and there are several levels. Ask the DMV next time you are down there.
This is a tough but natural socioeconomic condition.. What these unions fail to recognize is that the wages paid to highly skilled, highly educated, and highly invested technology workers are based on market factors and competition for a limited pool of candidates. All of these tech companies are competing not only for workers locally but also globally. This situation doesn't apply to bus drivers. Unfortunately within the same region you have a vast disparity between parts of the population that are being compensated under vastly different sets of rules and different circumstances. Trying to normalize compensation and force entitlement equity based solely on proximity will drive up operating costs and encourage the jobs producing companies to move to locations that don't artificially manipulate free market factors, which like it or not, will always have disparity when competitive influences are in effect. If you want wage equality without recognizing personal risk, investment, education, experience, and market demand - move to Siberia.
Only natural in the system that we've designed.
There is a huge power imbalance when companies make deals with each worker individually. All you need to say is "Hey, you won't work 16 hour shifts? I've got a line of people around the block who will." And the reason they will is -- they're afraid if they don't someone ELSE will. So it drives the value of the work down to the absolute minimum.
The reason tech workers get paid a lot isn't simply because they're skilled. It's because there is more demand for programmers than supply. PHd professors are plenty skilled, but most get paid the equivalent of minimum wage. It's not about the value you provide, it's supply and demand. Just wait until these "Everyone Should Learn To Code" initiatives really get going. They'll drive the wages for software developers down to nothing too. A union is an attempt for workers to coordinate and collectively negotiate conditions by withholding the supply of labor without turning against each other in a race to the bottom.
Clearly some unions are corrupt, but there is absolutely a place for collective bargaining in the work world.
Most people don't have enough money saved for retirement and without the machinery of government robbing Peter to pay Paul, people would have to act more responsibly and save and invest their savings or suffer the consequences of foolish behavior.
An irresponsible society composed solely of consumers is doomed to collapse.
Workers have every right to organise and join unions to negotiate conditions and pay with employers.
People being paid more means they can buy more stuff, this boosts the economy.
I don't know why people are so dumb they can't figure this out.
The resistance in part comes from companies that look over at competitors whose workers AREN'T unionized and see a potential disadvantage in overhead that can make the difference between staying in business and not.
The resistance in part comes from companies that look over at competitors whose workers AREN'T unionized and see a potential disadvantage in overhead that can make the difference between staying in business and not.
People not being able to afford to buy what you sell, will drive you out of business faster than that.
Hey, you can always give people loans that they can't afford to service and onsell them as valuable assets.
Most people don't have enough money saved for retirement and without the machinery of government robbing Peter to pay Paul, people would have to act more responsibly and save and invest their savings or suffer the consequences of foolish behavior.
An irresponsible society composed solely of consumers is doomed to collapse.
The more a person is paid the more they can afford to spend and save.
Perhaps you can do what we do here, compulsory superannuation where a percentage of a persons wage is put into super.
Of course they would have to be paid a decent amount in the first place.
People being paid more means they can buy more stuff, this boosts the economy.
I don't know why people are so dumb they can't figure this out.
What about the opportunity cost though? Whenever you divert resources from one thing to another there is an opportunity cost...
e.g. Say Apple didn't pay extra to the bus driver, they gave it to the cook in the cafetaria instead, who just happens to have a genius daughter, who the mother then puts through university with the extra money, and the daughter cures cancer.
Or e.g. maybe there is a guy who has a really good idea for a new restaurant chain but he can't get a loan from the bank, because banks are only allowed to lend in proportion to the amount of savings deposits they have. If Apple had done nothing with that money but add it to their money pile, the bank would have more deposits, therefore more loans available, and maybe that new restaurant chain is a success and employs thousands.
So I don't know how you can say giving the money to the bus driver will boost the economy and that's that. As I outlined above it could have actually cost the economy thousands of jobs or even the cure for cancer. The economy is a big and complicated thing and we just don't know.
What about the opportunity cost though? Whenever you divert resources from one thing to another there is an opportunity cost...
e.g. Say Apple didn't pay extra to the bus driver, they gave it to the cook in the cafetaria instead, who just happens to have a genius daughter, who the mother then puts through university with the extra money, and the daughter cures cancer.
Or e.g. maybe there is a guy who has a really good idea for a new restaurant chain but he can't get a loan from the bank, because banks are only allowed to lend in proportion to the amount of savings deposits they have. If Apple had nothing with that money but add it to their money pile, the bank would have more deposits, therefore more loans available, and maybe that new restaurant chain is a success and employs thousands.
So I don't know how you can say giving the money to the bus driver will boost the economy and that's that. As I outlined above it could have cost the economy thousands of jobs or even the cure for cancer. The economy is a big and complicated thing and we just don't know.
You're never going to eliminate opportunity costs.
Comments
You've never been in a position of responsibility, have you?
People are currently run over all of the time in the absence of driverless cars. Insurance coverage will determine responsibility.
What's funny is that many economists which are much smarter than the lot of us have said a resurgence of unions is needed.
LOL...that's hilarious. I presume you are referring to some of the Keynesian Marxists who currently enjoy the favor of the current US administration?
$18-$20 to drive a bus around? That's not enough? Seems to much for a zero skill job! You know exactly where you're going and do the same thing over and over and over again. I guess what they want to do is price themselves right out of the market!!! These company's could create their own service for example. Unions will literally drive a business out of business in their greed for ever more money!!! There's many examples of this.
How's this for an example? If wages had grown with productivity the minimum wage would be at around $20 an hour.
Originally Posted by JBDragon
$18-$20 to drive a bus around? That's not enough? Seems to much for a zero skill job! You know exactly where you're going and do the same thing over and over and over again. I guess what they want to do is price themselves right out of the market!!! These company's could create their own service for example. Unions will literally drive a business out of business in their greed for ever more money!!! There's many examples of this.
If these companies create their owe service who will they hire? The drivers from the company they no longer use! Every Commercial Driver License have to have special training and there are several levels. Ask the DMV next time you are down there.
This is a tough but natural socioeconomic condition.. What these unions fail to recognize is that the wages paid to highly skilled, highly educated, and highly invested technology workers are based on market factors and competition for a limited pool of candidates. All of these tech companies are competing not only for workers locally but also globally. This situation doesn't apply to bus drivers. Unfortunately within the same region you have a vast disparity between parts of the population that are being compensated under vastly different sets of rules and different circumstances. Trying to normalize compensation and force entitlement equity based solely on proximity will drive up operating costs and encourage the jobs producing companies to move to locations that don't artificially manipulate free market factors, which like it or not, will always have disparity when competitive influences are in effect. If you want wage equality without recognizing personal risk, investment, education, experience, and market demand - move to Siberia.
Only natural in the system that we've designed.
There is a huge power imbalance when companies make deals with each worker individually. All you need to say is "Hey, you won't work 16 hour shifts? I've got a line of people around the block who will." And the reason they will is -- they're afraid if they don't someone ELSE will. So it drives the value of the work down to the absolute minimum.
The reason tech workers get paid a lot isn't simply because they're skilled. It's because there is more demand for programmers than supply. PHd professors are plenty skilled, but most get paid the equivalent of minimum wage. It's not about the value you provide, it's supply and demand. Just wait until these "Everyone Should Learn To Code" initiatives really get going. They'll drive the wages for software developers down to nothing too. A union is an attempt for workers to coordinate and collectively negotiate conditions by withholding the supply of labor without turning against each other in a race to the bottom.
Clearly some unions are corrupt, but there is absolutely a place for collective bargaining in the work world.
Workers have every right to organise and join unions to negotiate conditions and pay with employers.
People being paid more means they can buy more stuff, this boosts the economy.
I don't know why people are so dumb they can't figure this out.
LOL...that's hilarious. I presume you are referring to some of the Keynesian Marxists who currently enjoy the favor of the current US administration?
Simple common sense.
The poorer people are, the less they consume.
Consumption is what drives the economy, the purchase of goods and services.
You forgot the best part. The money goes back whence it came. It's a cycle in which everyone is happy.
Americans need to save more, not spend more.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/
Most people don't have enough money saved for retirement and without the machinery of government robbing Peter to pay Paul, people would have to act more responsibly and save and invest their savings or suffer the consequences of foolish behavior.
An irresponsible society composed solely of consumers is doomed to collapse.
Workers have every right to organise and join unions to negotiate conditions and pay with employers.
People being paid more means they can buy more stuff, this boosts the economy.
I don't know why people are so dumb they can't figure this out.
The resistance in part comes from companies that look over at competitors whose workers AREN'T unionized and see a potential disadvantage in overhead that can make the difference between staying in business and not.
The resistance in part comes from companies that look over at competitors whose workers AREN'T unionized and see a potential disadvantage in overhead that can make the difference between staying in business and not.
People not being able to afford to buy what you sell, will drive you out of business faster than that.
Hey, you can always give people loans that they can't afford to service and onsell them as valuable assets.
That worked out well, didn't it.
That's clearly not the case. Apple is completely focused on middle and upper income customers and it has served them very well.
Americans need to save more, not spend more.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/
Most people don't have enough money saved for retirement and without the machinery of government robbing Peter to pay Paul, people would have to act more responsibly and save and invest their savings or suffer the consequences of foolish behavior.
An irresponsible society composed solely of consumers is doomed to collapse.
The more a person is paid the more they can afford to spend and save.
Perhaps you can do what we do here, compulsory superannuation where a percentage of a persons wage is put into super.
Of course they would have to be paid a decent amount in the first place.
That's clearly not the case. Apple is completely focused on middle and upper income customers and it has served them very well.
Middle income?
Like those paid by the government, who inject money into the economy.
Your president is doing very well at the moment, in spite of the roadblocks a certain section of your community tries to put in his way.
The middle was sliding down for a while.
People being paid more means they can buy more stuff, this boosts the economy.
I don't know why people are so dumb they can't figure this out.
What about the opportunity cost though? Whenever you divert resources from one thing to another there is an opportunity cost...
e.g. Say Apple didn't pay extra to the bus driver, they gave it to the cook in the cafetaria instead, who just happens to have a genius daughter, who the mother then puts through university with the extra money, and the daughter cures cancer.
Or e.g. maybe there is a guy who has a really good idea for a new restaurant chain but he can't get a loan from the bank, because banks are only allowed to lend in proportion to the amount of savings deposits they have. If Apple had done nothing with that money but add it to their money pile, the bank would have more deposits, therefore more loans available, and maybe that new restaurant chain is a success and employs thousands.
So I don't know how you can say giving the money to the bus driver will boost the economy and that's that. As I outlined above it could have actually cost the economy thousands of jobs or even the cure for cancer. The economy is a big and complicated thing and we just don't know.
You're never going to eliminate opportunity costs.
What factors contribute to a person being able to earn more money, in your estimation?