The workers who are employed at these factories would work 24 hours a day if they could. They WANT the work and they want the money. The life of these workers amounts to most of them traveling to the factories from the country to work very hard for a relatively short amount of time so they can become “rich” (remember, “rich” is a relative term) and return to their village or small town, get married and raise a family. Things are very clear cut for people who work these jobs.
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Hmmm. Maybe it's because those who endured the hardest working conditions and had direct experience of the lack of unionism started to retire in the mid-1970s? Those who came after them didn't realise how hard the fight against management can be, or were shocked by the excesses of union leadership without having a comparison point to the excesses of capitalist predecessors?
Maintaining a centuries-long fight against a group of people who are motivated by the profits to be gained is a very difficult collective goal. For a period of about fifty years, there was some understanding gained by the "titans of industry" that aiming for the optimum balance of hours worked vs output achieved was beneficial for their own companies not just in terms of efficiency - enriching their workers meant that those workers had more money to spend on more goods and services, improving the size of the addressable market and increasing economic activity.
None of us want to change unless we have to. The unionisation period gave enough power to the labour force that the stewards of capital were forced to question their behaviours of the time; but power often corrupts and the union movement failed to recognise its own steps down the path of coercion and dogma-driven decision-making. The world also changed as international transport became cheaper and more reliable, so the addressable market for many companies grew independently from the amount of money they shared with the local community.
The question boils down to "what are we trying to optimise?" - if it's a single company, then one set of behaviours becomes acceptable. If it's the local community, another set of behaviours applies. What do we have to do to improve the entire world for all of humanity? Each of us will choose.
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Here’s what you should actually be concerned with — similar chart but with overlaid with the destruction of the middle class:
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here: ...
Never been a fan of Robert Reich, per se, but your chart depicts a depressing set of circumstances.
One good start would be to change the laws that place fiduciary responsibility to shareholders above every other meaningful consideration, such as employees, local communities, and other highly dependent stakeholders. In other words, things that Wall Street traders don’t give a crap about.
How about overlaying the value of the dollar dropping over time with that chart? There’s the real problem. The cumulative rate of inflation since 1970 is more than 560%. Also, the population of the entire US has been dropping, so that’s also clearly a factor.
CloudTalkin said: The law ... doesn't introduce inefficiencies; it introduces potentially higher production costs for the companies. [...]
Wha?!! How are those two statements not mutually exclusive?
The amount paid for wages has no impact on the (lack of) efficiency of the processes in a business. The work is clearly available or the labour would not be employed in the first place.
And if the demand for labour is so high, why does the price not rise in response? If the price were to rise to an unsustainable point, that's the impetus for improving efficiency so that less labour input is required - as is shown by a number of European countries where the minimum wage is much higher than, say, the USA.
It may be an imperfect measure. But in the real world efficiency is measured in $$$.
CloudTalkin said: The law ... doesn't introduce inefficiencies; it introduces potentially higher production costs for the companies. [...]
Wha?!! How are those two statements not mutually exclusive?
The amount paid for wages has no impact on the (lack of) efficiency of the processes in a business. The work is clearly available or the labour would not be employed in the first place.
And if the demand for labour is so high, why does the price not rise in response? If the price were to rise to an unsustainable point, that's the impetus for improving efficiency so that less labour input is required - as is shown by a number of European countries where the minimum wage is much higher than, say, the USA.
It may be an imperfect measure. But in the real world efficiency is measured in $$$.
At what scale? Within a single company, possibly. But a company's accounts are tabulated by explicitly ignoring anything which cannot have a dollar value assigned - that's what the Accounting Standards dictate. So, while studies have shown that happier workers are more productive it is very, very difficult to quantify the "happiness" of an individual worker and any given group of workers. Yet, we all want to be happier and we all agree that being happier is a worthwhile outcome.
Also note, as many manufacturers found out decades ago, optimising a single part of the chain does not result in optimal outcomes for the entire chain. If one area of the plant manufactures widget X at 99% efficiency and just makes as many of them as they can, you end up with an oversupply of widget X and have to store them until demand increases. This storage is a drag on efficiency for the plant as a whole.
So, again, what's your scale? What are you trying to optimise for?
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Here’s what you should actually be concerned with — similar chart but with overlaid with the destruction of the middle class:
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here: ...
Never been a fan of Robert Reich, per se, but your chart depicts a depressing set of circumstances.
One good start would be to change the laws that place fiduciary responsibility to shareholders above every other meaningful consideration, such as employees, local communities, and other highly dependent stakeholders. In other words, things that Wall Street traders don’t give a crap about.
How about overlaying the value of the dollar dropping over time with that chart? There’s the real problem. The cumulative rate of inflation since 1970 is more than 560%. Also, the population of the entire US has been dropping, so that’s also clearly a factor.
Actually, the population is still growing, just at the the slowest rate since 1937, at about 0.6 %.
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Here’s what you should actually be concerned with — similar chart but with overlaid with the destruction of the middle class:
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here:
I'll say again: correlation =/= causation. You're being fooled by randomness. And, before you post something, you should understand what it means: what is the definition of "middle class" here?
And please let's not reference Robert Reich? There's too much baggage there over which to get into an argument...
Ahh! So you support a foolish argument with a foolish, overly simplistic, saying... I guess you get points for consistency.
Not sure why we debate about Foxconn using temporary workers for meeting temporary production demand. If that is what business demands than so be. If Chinese workers don't have problem than why we argue and waste time. Let market forces short out with demand and supply equation.
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Here’s what you should actually be concerned with — similar chart but with overlaid with the destruction of the middle class:
...I doubt it’s coincidence, as unions helped produce America’s golden age of middle class earners via collective bargaining, etc. The removal of unions benefits only one group - the wealthy corporation executive class. Doubt many here belong to that club.
Robert Reich dismantles 5 other corporate lies about unions here:
I'll say again: correlation =/= causation. You're being fooled by randomness. And, before you post something, you should understand what it means: what is the definition of "middle class" here?
And please let's not reference Robert Reich? There's too much baggage there over which to get into an argument...
Ahh! So you support a foolish argument with a foolish, overly simplistic, saying... I guess you get points for consistency.
You excel in non sequiturs.
Kudos.
By definition, statements of fact cannot be non sequitur
I support workers no matter where they live and work. Labor laws are serious and none you Apple justifiers are correct when you say otherwise. Apple should not uses any suppliers or manufactures which does not obey those laws just so you can get new iPhone within days of its launch.
But you would scream bloody murder if your Chinese products went up in price because of those laborers getting paid better. Everybody is already screaming bloody murder over tariffs raising the price of Chinese goods. I can’t imagine how outraged you would be if automation eliminated most of those laborer’s jobs altogether. Apparently NYC mayor Bill de Blasio is blathering about a “robot tax” that would punish companies who eliminate jobs with automation.
I'm rich so no. I would not scream bloody murder. By the way De Blasio is an idiot and a traitor to the people of New York.
Yeh, that's what Carnegie and and the mine owners told their U.S. workers 100 years ago -- before we had unions and labor laws.
If unions are so hot, I am sure you can explain why this happened (btw, the graph for Europe is nearly identical):
Unions are a double edged sword. Once strict labor laws are mandated by federal policy, the need of paying your salary to a group of people to “advocate” on your behalf greatly diminishes. Likewise, societies are far more mobile now than 60 years ago given more power to the worker.
I have worked enough in union shops (not as a union employee but as a professional employee working alongside union workers) to understand the detrimental impact they can have on businesses. Greed comes from companies just as easily as sloth comes from workers.
Comments
Hmmm. Maybe it's because those who endured the hardest working conditions and had direct experience of the lack of unionism started to retire in the mid-1970s? Those who came after them didn't realise how hard the fight against management can be, or were shocked by the excesses of union leadership without having a comparison point to the excesses of capitalist predecessors?
Maintaining a centuries-long fight against a group of people who are motivated by the profits to be gained is a very difficult collective goal. For a period of about fifty years, there was some understanding gained by the "titans of industry" that aiming for the optimum balance of hours worked vs output achieved was beneficial for their own companies not just in terms of efficiency - enriching their workers meant that those workers had more money to spend on more goods and services, improving the size of the addressable market and increasing economic activity.
None of us want to change unless we have to. The unionisation period gave enough power to the labour force that the stewards of capital were forced to question their behaviours of the time; but power often corrupts and the union movement failed to recognise its own steps down the path of coercion and dogma-driven decision-making. The world also changed as international transport became cheaper and more reliable, so the addressable market for many companies grew independently from the amount of money they shared with the local community.
The question boils down to "what are we trying to optimise?" - if it's a single company, then one set of behaviours becomes acceptable. If it's the local community, another set of behaviours applies. What do we have to do to improve the entire world for all of humanity? Each of us will choose.
Also note, as many manufacturers found out decades ago, optimising a single part of the chain does not result in optimal outcomes for the entire chain. If one area of the plant manufactures widget X at 99% efficiency and just makes as many of them as they can, you end up with an oversupply of widget X and have to store them until demand increases. This storage is a drag on efficiency for the plant as a whole.
So, again, what's your scale? What are you trying to optimise for?
https://time.com/5485023/census-us-population-growth-2018/
Kudos.
I have worked enough in union shops (not as a union employee but as a professional employee working alongside union workers) to understand the detrimental impact they can have on businesses. Greed comes from companies just as easily as sloth comes from workers.