Posted on 01/07/2004 10:51:13 AM PST by xsysmgr
Are you sure it's not because employers are assiduously undercutting their wages and making sure they can't earn a living and have no job security? Hmmmmm?
I took a trip to Italy in 1982 and was surprised to see that tables were being waited on by full-grown Italian men, many of them no doubt with families to feed, who were efficient and professional. I didn't say there was no attitude -- there's attitude everywhere, from the mega-engineering manager Lee Iacocca once fired because he had "trouble getting along with people" (Iacocca, firing him: "Well, that's too bad, because people is all we have around here!") to the night-shift fry-cook at Denny's.
The point is, in Italy, employers haven't crushed wages every chance they got, just because they could and because the religion of the Harvard School of Business is that you always break wages every chance you get -- you underpay people, you screw people, you break unions and document people's files unfairly and fire them. You do whatever it takes to break your payroll, quoth the b-school don who's high and dry and out of the rain, just because that's the right thing to do, and we said so, and five is bigger than four.
My point is that it isn't worth wrecking worker morale for an extra point or two in your ROR; that you probably give up top-line gains to flog your horses. But this opportunity cost never goes into the ROR calculations, even if higher worker health costs do (to which the Harvard solution is to eliminate benefits and put everyone on contract).
In 1996 or 1997, I forget the exact year, Agip, the Italian oil company, brought a new American manager into its Houston office. The manager did the cool manager thing and called in Kinsey and Associates, the Jack-the-Ripper HR and management consulting firm. Kinsey said, fire a zillion people and pocket the payroll! The American manager ran with it and proposed a big layoff (Agip up to that point having laid off sparingly if at all, while all around them were wading in the gore of their former employees)........and then he made a mistake. He included a couple of Italian nationals in his cuts. Result: the big layoff went forward, the two or three Italians were recalled to Milan rather than laid off, and the American manager went out the door right behind everyone else.
Defenders of slavery used to say the same sort of thing. Funny how nobody listened to them.
They also seem to be dying to get into slavery!
Oh, take me in, gentle Master, and let me warm myself by your fire! It's so cold out here in the dark!!!
</sarcasm>
The truth is that Socialists want to stifle the economy by establishing the so called "living wage" which is in fact the wage that will cash this economy into the dust, especially for first time employees.
Funny how a living wage didn't crash the 50's economy into the dust.....or crash Ford into the dust when he was paying people the unheard-of wage of $5/day, two generations earlier.
Truth is, every employer could be Fezziwig instead of Scrooge and Marley if he wanted to. Sometimes the motive for breaking wages is just plain greed.
The bulk of Texas Mexicans (i.e., immigrant Mexicans, not first-generation or later Chicanos) are from northern Mexico, where attitudes are closer to American ones re work, family, and politics. Even so, Republicans never get better than a 40% split from Texas Mexicans (Mexicans do vote in our elections, courtesy of Texas Democrats), ex-Mexicans, and Chicanos; and the Democratic tilt is even stronger in the more westerly states, whose immigrants come from farther south.
You cannot generalize by proposing two unique situations - one argument which is definitely a fallacious one - involved in both these scenarios. IN the case of Ford, by the mid 30’s Ford had cut all Ford workers' wages in half.
About the 50's - it seems that you and Krugman look back nostalgically at the 50's ---funny he is a leftist...On most accounts, the middle class today enjoys a higher standard of living than his parents/grandparents did in the 50's. You are wrong on this.
I am not wrong. The "standard of living" you speak about today involves both parents working and kids growing up without adequate supervision, as "latchkey" kids and as habitue's of daycare or other parking solutions.
A father in the 50's was able to support his family comfortably according to the standards of the day on just his income. That's what I meant. By raising the bar, you are axiomatically comparing apples and oranges, and then calling me wrong.
Married women have entered the workforce to supply their menfolk's declining earning power (in deflated dollars) as companies wage war on payroll costs.
In response to the extremity of a worldwide economic depression, and not just as a general practice of doing business. Please.
Then Again you Suthren boys have been a little touchy since Sherman decided to go visit the Sea....
It was obviously clear enough for the guy in post #4.....so maybe clarity is in the eye (or not) of the beholder....Vision Check anyone?
retarding technological progress and productivity growth."
ABSOLUTELY!! This issue has so many aspects that it's almost impossible to address them all. The US will be hurt by this proposal probably beyond repair. IF Bush isn't stopped, I am afraid we are doomed.
Don't worry. Mark Krikorian will get the boot sooner or later as Buchanan and Sobran have got. And people like you make the best publicity for the trade unions.
I suspect that the problem is with American managers and not with American workers. American CEOs, managers should be laid off/fired and replaced with Italians, Indians and Chinese. It will save a lot of money, assure LONG TERM viability of American companies and protect American jobs.
It depends on what you call a higher standard of living. In the 50's a high school graduate could be married at age 21, buying a house shortly after, support a number of kids on one income, the house typically had a 4% interest rate, 15 year mortgage, the car loan could be paid off in 2 years. No credit card debt at all was common. Today a high school graduate isn't likely to have much of a job, shouldn't marry at age 21 because there is no way they can afford marriage, kids, houses. He might have a car if his parents paid or he has a 5 year car loan. If the 21 year old high school graduate buys a home it's going to be a 30 year mortgage rate.
Having grown up chopping cotton in the cotton fields of Tennessee in the mid-70's I can assure you that African Americans are quite capable of holding a shovel or (in my case) a hoe.
In fact, the biggest challenge is re-educating them on the fact that when referring to the "hoe", we're talkin' about their girlfriend!
The costs for these services, plus schooling, IS NOT miniscule in California, eleni. The costs (BILLIONS) are placed on the backs of ordinary taxpayers and homeowners. California taxes are among the highest in the nation, yet our state is going bankrupt. Property taxes are sky high, and they want to raise them to build more schools for the millions of illegal alien kids who reside here. The free breakfasts and lunches, the assisted housing, the food stamps, the welfare checks, everything is free to them, and we just can't afford it anymore. Many medical centers have been forced to close because of the high costs of providing medical care to millions of "emergency room" patients who don't have emergencies at all, but know that ER care is free.
Bush's program will encourage millions more to come, and they will, hoping for dead-end jobs, with income supplemented by free perks paid for by us. It isn't fair.
OK, fair enough, but suppose there were no street workers would the ditch still be dug or would the project grind to a halt? Chances are you'd rent a backhoe and get the job done just the same. Maybe you'd pay a little more but you'd still do the job. Over time the backhoe rental company would see its profits increase, so other entriprising individuals would get into the rental business, competition would drive the daily rental of backhoes down and your costs would be the same as if you have a group of illegals doing the work. The difference being that the ditch would be dug quicker and straighter.
The 50's were a unique period for American manufactorers. The industrial sections of Europe, Britain, Japan, and the USSR had been mostly destroyed during WW-2. The only major industrialized nation with its factories intact was the US. If you wanted manufactored good, you pretty-much HAD to buy American. The rest of the work was also buying American industrial equiptment to fix up their factories. The American people had just been through years of rationing and wanted to replace their old cars and appliances.
All this meant full employment for all American workers and a high standard of living for the US, while the rest of the world was hungry
Now, if we had another major war, this time between the West and Islam and China, and by some miracle the US survived intact (doubtful in the age of nukes and missiles) while the rest of the world had to rebuild, I guess American manufactoring would do well again.
The cost seems rather high, though
What's the minimum wage in Dhaka? Is there any? If none, then what is the lowest wage being paid there?
I want you to show us how. Show us some moral leadership, by accepting that wage. Then tell us it's good enough for the rest of us, and how we can live on it, and why we should accept that life as our destiny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.