What Large Retailers Can Learn From Henry Ford...

Kay King

12 years ago

Do we really need a SECOND "bash walmart" thread?

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725080].message }}

TLTheLiberator 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Do we really need a SECOND "bash walmart" thread?

You got me good that time Kay!

I thank you.
- Thanks
Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725585].message }}

Dan Riffle

12 years ago

I'm shocked - shocked - that this piece was written by a Berkley economist.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725135].message }}

Kay King

12 years ago

Could it be WE are solving this problem?

Last week the thread was about "minimum wage" - $7.25.

This week the complaint in the article is about pay of $8.85.

In just a few short days of b**ch, whine, complain, blame, explain, excuse - we have raised the wages of WM workers by $1.60.

Damn, we're good!

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725289].message }}

Dan Riffle

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Could it be WE are solving this problem?

Last week the thread was about "minimum wage" - $7.25.

This week the complaint in the article is about pay of $8.85.

In just a few short days of b**ch, whine, complain, blame, explain, excuse - we have raised the wages of WM workers by $1.60.

Damn, we're good!

That's a 22% raise!

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725339].message }}

Midnight Oil

12 years ago

The author is quite selective about which lessons he would have us learn from Ford. Should we also adapt what went in to those wage increases?

Probably few industrial announcements have created a more world-wide comment than did this one, and hardly any one got the facts quite right. Workmen quite generally believed that they were going to get five dollars a day, regardless of what work they did.

The facts were somewhat different from the general impression. The plan was to distribute profits, but instead of waiting until the profits had been earned - to approximate them in advance and to add them, under certain conditions, to the wages of those persons who had been in the employ of the company for six months or more. It was classified participation among three classes of employees:

(1) Married men living with and taking good care of their families.
(2) Single men over twenty-two years of age who are of proved thrifty habits.
(3) Young men under twenty-two years of age, and women who are the sole support of some next of kin.

It was a sort of prosperity-sharing plan. But on conditions. The man and his home had to come up to certain standards of cleanliness and citizenship.

Ford also employed "about fifty investigators in the Social Department" whose job it was to make sure participants were meeting those "certain standards of cleanliness and citizenship."

Seems the author also missed the following lesson from Ford:

But in the beginning the idea was that there should be a very definite incentive to better living and that the very best incentive was a money premium on proper living. A man who is living aright will do his work aright. And then, too, we wanted to avoid the possibility of lowering the standard of work through an increased wage. It was demonstrated in war time that too quickly increasing a man's pay sometimes increases only his cupidity and therefore decreases his earning power. If, in the beginning, we had simply put the increase in the pay envelopes, then very likely the work standards would have broken down. The pay of about half the men was doubled in the new plan; it might have been taken as "easy money." The thought of easy money breaks down work. There is a danger in too rapidly raising the pay of any man - whether he previously received one dollar or one hundred dollars a day.

Quotes from My Life and Work by Henry Ford

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725388].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

The author is quite selective about which lessons he would have us learn from Ford. Should we also adapt what went in to those wage increases?

Ford also employed "about fifty investigators in the Social Department" whose job it was to make sure participants were meeting those "certain standards of cleanliness and citizenship."

Seems the author also missed the following lesson from Ford:

Quotes from My Life and Work by Henry Ford

I wondered exactly who would bring up all the baggage of Ford.

It was you Midnight Oil. It was you.

So therefore...

Is there anyone in here ready, willing or able to engage in a conversation regarding the economic benefits of what Mr. Ford did - economically?

What happened as far as economic interactions in the society?

Was it positive, negative?

Did it do anything to help improve the living standards of the American people?

Was a lot more money floating among the populace because of the Fords' economic policy?

Or a lot less?

Was it enough to matter anyway?

Why did the WS Journal call Ford a traitor to his class? (according to the article or something printed around it)

Finally...

Was this just a slick way to bash WM again or an honest attempt to engage in a most interesting conversation for all Jr. Social Scientists - especially the business minded, here at the WF?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725636].message }}

Dan Riffle

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I wondered exactly who would bring up all the baggage of Ford.

It was you Midnight Oil. It was you.

So therefore...

Is there anyone in here ready, willing or able to engage in a conversation regarding the economic benefits of what Mr. Ford did - economically?

What happened as far as economic interactions in the society?

Was it positive, negative?

Did it do anything to help improve the living standards of the American people?

Was a lot more money floating among the populace because of the Fords' economic policy?

Or a lot less?

Was it enough to matter anyway?

Why did the WS Journal call Ford a traitor to his class? (according to the article or something printed around it)

Finally...

Was this just a slick way to bash WM again or an honest attempt to engage in a most interesting conversation for all Jr. Social Scientists - especially the business minded, here at the WF?

Tell you what, TL. I might bite, but before heading down such a tedious path, you have to explain how our current legal system would allow WalMart or any employer to attach Ford's social and civic parameters to wages in today's marketplace.

Second, please discuss how today's global marketplace might have changed Ford's economic plan.

Was this just a slick way to bash WM again or an honest attempt to engage in a most interesting conversation for all Jr. Social Scientists - especially the business minded, here at the WF?

Slick? No. You're about as subtle as an earthquake. Honest? No less than normal.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725660].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

Tell you what, TL. I might bite, but before heading down such a tedious path, you have to explain how our current legal system would allow WalMart or any employer to attach Ford's social and civic parameters to wages in today's marketplace.

Second, please discuss how today's global marketplace might have changed Ford's economic plan.

I don't think they would if it were widely known and if it was widely known at the time etc. and wasn't stopped what was the fallout from those overbearing activities?

It's not like he was running the inquisition.

But you can dwell on that aspect of Ford's activities if you like.

I'd say in the big picture those activities paled in comparison to the economic benefits that flowed from his program.

To be clear, Ford could have and should have left that stuff out of his set of attitudes that lead to his set of policies.

That question was tedious IMHO.

For your second question...

The American economy is a bigem.

Even in today's multi-national climate and low labor cost around the world, Ford could have easily done today what he did when he did it. (I'm hazy on the year(s))

The crux of that matter is whether or not Ford would have been inclined to say I need that super cheap labor or not.

The Costco model in the present American economy proves that some large companies can still be quite profitable and decent to employees at the same time.

What was the article talking about in essence?

- Share the bounty of the economic output by paying higher wages/benefits.

- Those employees can now buy a car.

- The extra buying power cascades throughout the society or in any case those employees are better off economically and the society hasn't been hurt one bit.

Also...

- With the present day giant retailer model, if one of them decided it was a good financial move (the nice guy thingy), it is highly possible that others would follow suit and the result would be some serious positive economic cascading.

I hear inflation would be a non factor.

- I also hear 6-10 million Americans would be lifted above the official poverty line if such giant retailers did such a thing.

Imagine (dreaming music and dreamy visuals)...

WM or another large retailer decides to betray their class and say what the hell?

We can help spark another American boom. The rest follow suit.

I wonder how many more people would shop at WM if WM lead the way?

? million new customers at least once a month?

Then you may have the battle of the corporations.

Would the bankers and financiers get angry and retaliate against the retailers?

I hope that answers your questions?

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725766].message }}

Midnight Oil

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I wondered exactly who would bring up all the baggage of Ford.

It was you Midnight Oil. It was you.

The author brings up Ford's wage increases as a shining example of what WM should do for their employees.

I point out some of the things that actually went into Ford's plan.

By doing so, you claim I'm bringing up all of Ford's baggage.

That's what you call an honest attempt to engage?

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725691].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

The author brings up Ford's wage increases as a shining example of what WM should do for their employees.

I point out some of the things that actually went into Ford's plan.

By doing so, you claim I'm bringing up all of Ford's baggage.

That's what you call an honest attempt to engage?

But I did wonder who would miss the entire point of the article and it was you.

Do you mind if we talk about the money involved?

Micro and macro economics?

How about this one?

Is it economically sound for the present day USA federal government to some how, some way financially assist anyone and everyone who wants to improve their education?

Or should the federalies get the hell out if the way and let the market and the populace sort things out.

Or let the states handle it?

That is the question.

Dan, what are your thoughts? You brought up education in the WM thread the other day.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725808].message }}

Midnight Oil 12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

But I did wonder who would miss the entire point of the article and it was you.

Yes, I'm sure you think you're just that clever.

I see it for exactly what it is, a propaganda piece which calls for a boycott on WM.

That you immediately went into attack mode because I posted facts about Ford's plan is quite telling. The string of questions since is nothing more than deflection.

The entire point of the article is:

"You can help teach Walmart how much power its consumers have: Stand with its workers who deserve a raise, and boycott Walmart on the most important sales day of the year, November 29."

It really isn't that hard to miss.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725928].message }}
- hardraysnight 12 years ago
  
  holdens are better than ford any time
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  These guys helped me with the feedback for my site
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726046].message }}
Dan Riffle 12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Dan, what are your thoughts? You brought up education in the WM thread the other day.

TL, I'm out and about wining and dining clients, you know, being an evil capitalist. I'll respond to your earlier points later, once we're finished clubbing baby seals and betting on cage fights with homeless people.

However, I'll take a moment to address your question above.

I'm all for educating the masses. An individual's education is his/her most valuable asset. I also think educating the populace is in society's best interest, so I have no problem funding education with my tax dollars. If I had the ability to earmark where my tax dollars went, I'd allocate 80% to education and 20% to defense (with the understanding that others would earmark differently).

I'm also all for corporations that decide to subsidize employee education. I'd much rather see, say, WalMart, take the revenue you'd like to earmark for increased salaries and use it to pay education expenses for employees. I think we'd see better returns on the money that way.

However, it still comes back to individual responsibility. It isn't governments', corporations', society's or your neighbor's job to educate you. It's your job. If you refuse to take responsibility for your own education, in essence your and your family's well being, then I have zero sympathy for you, your wage or your employment possibilities. You are on your own. If you refuse to learn to hunt, you don't eat.
- [ 4 ] Thanks
Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726065].message }}

hitesh93

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Is it economically sound for the present day USA federal government to some how, some way financially assist anyone and everyone who wants to improve their education?

I'll just respond to this very simply, and hopefully that settles the debate for you.

Ford paying higher/giving money based on social aspects of employees = Ford giving his OWN money.
US Govt doing so = Giving away SOMEONE ELSE's money.

They are not comparable at all. One is management, other is theft.

If Ford came up with a plan on how to distribute the profits from some other company to his own employees, he'd be in jail. Yet politicians taken money generated by someone else and give it to their own supporters and it's consider some great achievement by the brainwashed.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726667].message }}

whateverpedia

12 years ago

Originally Posted by hitesh93

Ford paying higher/giving money based on social aspects of employees = Ford giving his OWN money.
US Govt doing so = Giving away SOMEONE ELSE's money.

You don't really understand economics do you.

If the government spends money on bettering the populace, it gets more back because people are paid higher wages, and pay more income tax. It's an investment in the prosperity of the whole nation.

Also, let's not forget, that you as a taxpayer, can also take advantage of these programs to better yourself as well.

Take a look at the Scandinavian countries who constantly top the tables for education, health, social cohesion, and more. Next look at how much in tax(es) they pay. There is a direct correlation.

[ 1 ] Thanks
5 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726696].message }}

whateverpedia

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

The flaw in your "economics" is that the government cannot create wealth, it simply takes it from people and gives it to others.

I'd agree with you, except for one thing. The individuals who "create" wealth get generous subsidies and tax breaks from ............................................. guess where.

In other words, taking from the many, to give to the few.

Then of course there's the infrastructure that enables them to "create" wealth, which for the most part is paid for by ................................................ guess where.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726781].message }}

Kay King 12 years ago

taking from the many, to give to the few.

But then there are those programs providing tax rebates to people who didn't pay taxes - and food stamps and housing subsidies and free cell phones - and health care where a 60 yr old woman must pay for pregnancy benefits and dental care for children to help pay for other people's benefits.

That's taking from the few to give to the many?

I'd love to find a place where everyone just takes care of his own damn self and his own business - and helps others when he wants to and when he can. If life got that simple again - we wouldn't need all those people in D.C.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726797].message }}

whateverpedia

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

The infrastructure is paid for by wealth created by private enterprise,

The infrastructure is paid for by the government "confiscating" the wealth you describe, and then spending it on said infrastructure.

If it was left to the "wealth creators", the only infrastructure that got built at all would be that which ONLY benefits the "creators". They wouldn't be acting in the best interests of their shareholders if they spent their "wealth" on anything else.

On a related topic:

The stockmarket is viewed as a barometer for the economy as a whole.

Massive layoffs/sackings/downsizings are not good for the economy.

However when a company announces it is getting rid of a lot of its workforce, that company's share price (usually) rises.

These disruptions are not good for the economy, but are good for the individual company(s).

Shareholders interests are not necessarily in the best interest of the nation itself.

Exactly where the "point of balance" is between the national interest, and individual interests is something we could argue about until the cows come home, without resolving anything.

If the best minds in government, industry and academia can't work it out (and they haven't been able to yet), it is beyond the scope of "mere mortals" such as ourselves to work it out.

If, however that balance could be achieved, ie between Scandinavian "outcomes" and U.S. "rights", the nation that achieves it would undoubtedly be the "happiest place on Earth".

We should at least be able to agree on the last paragraph. Shouldn't we?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726858].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

The infrastructure is paid for by the government "confiscating" the wealth you describe, and then spending it on said infrastructure.

If it was left to the "wealth creators", the only infrastructure that gets built at all would be that which ONLY benefits the "creators". they wouldn't be acting in the best interests of their shareholders if they spent their "wealth" on anything else.

On a related topic:

The stockmarket is viewed as a barometer for the economy as a whole.

Massive layoffs/sackings/downsizings are not good for the economy.

However when a company announces it is getting rid of a lot of its workforce, that company's share price (usually) rises.

These disruptions are not good for the economy, but are good for the individual company(s).

Shareholders interests are not necessarily in the best interest of the nation itself.

Exactly where the "point of balance" is between the national interest, and individual interests is something we could argue about until the cows come home, without resolving anything.

If the best minds in government, industry and academia can't work it out (and they haven't been able to yet), it is beyond the scope of "mere mortals" such as ourselves to work it out.

If, however that balance could be achieved, ie between Scandinavian "outcomes" and U.S. "rights", the nation that achieves it would undoubtedly be the "happiest place on Earth".

We should at least be able to agree on the last paragraph. Shouldn't we?

Oh, but is was worked out in the USA from about 1945 to about 1980.

About 1980 the wheels started to be pried off in earnest until now we have what we have.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726922].message }}

whateverpedia

12 years ago

1

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Why do you think there are so few doctors?

No-one can afford a medical degree.

2

Why do you think there are only a handful of drug companies?

The few (ie drug companies) protecting their monopoly by paying for the election campaigns of "elected representatives".

3

Why do you think the FDA regulates natural health businesses out of existence?

See answer to 2 above.

4

Why do you think the USDA insists on homogenized milk?

See answer to 2 above.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8727112].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

1

No-one can afford a medical degree.

2 The few (ie drug companies) protecting their monopoly by paying for the election campaigns of "elected representatives".

3 See answer to 2 above.

4 See answer to 2 above.

Medical degrees went up for a lot of reasons, most of them ironic and senseless, but inflation is a BIG one! You USED to be able to SAVE for a home or college. NOW, most CAN'T! WHY? BECAUSE, by the time you save half your goal, your goal has more than doubled, because of inflation.

As for the medical industry? That is due to NOT ENFORCING LAWS! It amounts to bribery and extortion! Salespeople used to do this a LOT to corporations, but it was OUTLAWED! SADLY, a lot of similar stuff in congress was written OUT of the "law". WHEN are people going to wake up and INSIST that congress follows the SAME laws?

Some people were asking why martha stewart was thrown in jail for insider trading, according to US law and how CITIZENS are generally treated. What they SHOULD have been asking is why congress gets advanced notice of that and they are SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED to do such things! If they bankrupt a big company, like say walmart, they can watch the public lose money and have society collapse at their feet as they become MULTI BILLIONAIRES by selling walmart SHORT! Of course, MOST stuff is more subtle.

SOME have argued that paying them more, and gving them special perks, keeps them honest. You can NOT ****KEEP**** a person honest that is DISHONEST! Maybe it is time to pull all those perks, etc... OH YEAH, they supposedly can't vote THEMSELVES a raise, but can vote newcomers and those in the next session a raise. Of course, many of THEM end up in the next session, or get their pensions raised.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8727738].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

You don't really understand economics do you.

If the government spends money on bettering the populace, it gets more back because people are paid higher wages, and pay more income tax. It's an investment in the prosperity of the whole nation.

Also, let's not forget, that you as a taxpayer, can also take advantage of these programs to better yourself as well.

Take a look at the Scandinavian countries who constantly top the tables for education, health, social cohesion, and more. Next look at how much in tax(es) they pay. There is a direct correlation.

The difference with them and us is they don't take money from their people and give it to the corporations and banks. They also don't finance other countries nor do they sponsor long term wars and maintain military bases all over the world. Comparing Scandinavian countries to the U.S. is like comparing apples to sardines.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726808].message }}

whateverpedia

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

The difference with them and us is they don't take money from their people and give it to the corporations and banks. They also don't finance other countries nor do they sponsor long term wars and maintain military bases all over the world.

Excellent points.

Thanks

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726823].message }}

Joe Mobley 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

In effect, government programs are a zero sum game.

I think you are being optimistic.

Joe Mobley
- Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8730697].message }}
Joe Mobley 12 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Also, let's not forget, that you as a taxpayer, can also take advantage of these programs to better yourself as well.

Perhaps you could remind us of some of those programs that we could benefit from as tax paying citizens.

It seems to me that the primary function of government programs is to further perpetuate the government programs. The secondary function of these programs is to ineptly manage taxpayer funds into the hands of low tax paying or non-tax paying citizens and increasingly, non-citizens.

Joe Mobley
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8730749].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

You don't really understand economics do you.

Actually, YOU are the one showing that lack of understanding!

If the government spends money on bettering the populace, it gets more back because people are paid higher wages, and pay more income tax. It's an investment in the prosperity of the whole nation.

GIVE ME A BREAK! Did I cross into some area where we are in the year 0 and everyone got amnesia? BETTER THE POPULACE!?!?!?!? WHERE???????? WHEN?????????? why haven't they done this over a given country, let alone the WORLD?

WHEN did they manage to get people higher wages? I mean REAL higher wages! As an example? APPLE once sold for $14 a share. As of FRIDAY, that ONE share would be worth
$4158.4! YEP, you heard right, $4158.4. WHY? In 1987, they DEVALUED the shares! The US government does this with the US dollar ALL THE TIME! This is called "inflation". YEP, Apple shares DROPPED 50% in 1987, but they gave each share owner another share for each share in RETURN! This is called a "stock split". The US government ******NEVER****** does that! Apple shares were likewise devalued in 2000 and 2005! So each share ended up being worth 1/8th of the original value of the share.

So the newspaper CLAIMS apple shares are worth 519.80 OH, that sounds like a GREAT return! 3713% return! WOW! The TRUTH is that if you bought a share before 1987, you now have EIGHT shares, and $4158.4 or 29700% of your original investment.

NOW, let's look at the apparent change in the US dollar! You ready? OK, $14 in 1980 is now worth 4.99!

Also, let's not forget, that you as a taxpayer, can also take advantage of these programs to better yourself as well.

Actually, many specifically EXCLUDE me because I make too much, live in the wrong area, am the wrong race, or the wrong sex. Most others exclude me for OTHER reasons!

Take a look at the Scandinavian countries who constantly top the tables for education, health, social cohesion, and more. Next look at how much in tax(es) they pay. There is a direct correlation.

ACTUALLY, for Denmark, if you compare relative income valuations, in 1989 they pay NO MORE than we did! Oh SURE, they paid almost DOUBLE the percentage in income tax, but even MINIMUM wage earners were paid SO MUCH MORE, that the effect of the tax on their income merely brought it in PARITY with the US! When I went over there I DID ask different people about this, and I saw how things worked. Even with VAT, some things were actually CHEAPER there.

Still, there is NO way we can raise taxes! If we raise them $1, they may spend $3 or more! So if we give more money to the government, it may actually SPEED UP bankruptcy. We just CAN'T trust the US government.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8731150].message }}

TLTheLiberator 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

I'm shocked - shocked - that this piece was written by a Berkley economist.

You too Dan. I thank you also.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725587].message }}
- Dan Riffle 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator
  
  You too Dan. I thank you also.
  
  My sarcasm senses are downright tingling. :rolleyes:
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8725591].message }}
  
  Claude Whitacre 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Dan Riffle
  
  My sarcasm senses are downright tingling. :rolleyes:
  
  Wait! Were you just being sarcastic?
  
  Am I being sarcastic? I can never tell.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr
  
  What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726034].message }}

marketingva

12 years ago

I can't really contribute to the thread as it was originally created but I did want to say that my mother has some fond memories of sitting on Henry Ford's lap when he came to her home. She spent many happy hours with her family and him at family meals, etc. My grandfather was one of his early partners... he ran the horse farm for Henry.

Bonnie

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Magic Wand Author Services helps writers polish their manuscripts and connect to readers.
http://www.mwauthorservices.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726839].message }}

Dan Riffle

12 years ago

Originally Posted by marketingva

I can't really contribute to the thread as it was originally created but I did want to say that my mother has some fond memories of sitting on Henry Ford's lap when he came to her home. She spent many happy hours with her family and him at family meals, etc. My grandfather was one of his early partners... he ran the horse farm for Henry.

Bonnie

Bonnie, this is a post worthy of expansion. I'd love to read more.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726962].message }}

marketingva 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

Bonnie, this is a post worthy of expansion. I'd love to read more.

Hi Dan,

Henry was a gambler and loved horse racing. He built a ranch for his race horses but his wife became very religious (like born again). He hid this investment/involvement from his wife by having my grandfather run the ranch. Henry and my grandfather were very close. Henry would show up at the house with candy in his pockets for the five children.

My grandfather was younger than Henry and when Henry died his whole life changed. He never really recovered.

Bonnie
- [ 4 ] Thanks
Signature

Magic Wand Author Services helps writers polish their manuscripts and connect to readers.
http://www.mwauthorservices.com
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8727080].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

If someone suggests that a company should raise their wages to allow their employees to buy more products so their sales go up, you KNOW that guy is @#$%^&! Robert Reich is saying that!

Walmart’s CEO gets it. Most of Walmart’s customers are still in the Great Recession, grappling with stagnant or declining pay. So, naturally, Walmart’s sales are dropping.

But what Walmart’s CEO doesn’t get is that a large portion of Walmart’s customers are lower-wage workers who are working at places like … Walmart. And Walmart, not incidentally, refuses to raise its median wage (including its army of part-timers) of $8.80 an hour.

Walmart isn’t your average mom-and-pop operation. It’s the largest employer in America. As such, it’s the trendsetter for millions of other employers of low-wage workers. As long as Walmart keeps its wages at or near the bottom, other low-wage employers keep wages there, too. All they need do is offer $8.85 an hour to have their pick.

This is interesting though, because *****WATCH!!!!!!*****

On the other hand, if Walmart were to boost its wages, other employers of low-wage workers would have to follow suit in order to attract the employees they need.

Get it? Walmart is so huge that a wage boost at Walmart would ripple through the entire economy, putting more money in the pockets of low-wage workers. This would help boost the entire economy — including Walmart’s own sales. (This is also an argument for a substantial hike in the minimum wage.)

EXACTLY! And the people paying the increase would need an increase, and have to cut costs or increase prices. Since regulations, spoilage, pilferage, theft, taxes, will ensure costs remain high, UNLESS they go abroad and put people out of work, or CUT WAGES or LAY PEOPLE OFF, THEY will have to INCREASE PRICES!!!!!!!!

And what is THIS CALLED????????????? *********INFLATION*********

And WHAT does that do? It means that NEXT YEAR, people will AGAIN be saying they aren't making enough!

And just wait until it hits the next tiers! Doctors may become scarce! Innovation could stop! SCHOOLS could shut down!

In a way, keeping the minimum wage increases RELATIVELY small has helped the market to adjust so that it never quite hits the next tier. When it does, people may FINALLY stop complaining about having enough money, but will complain that there is little to buy.

NOBODY wants to get money. I could think of LOTS of ways to get a million dollars. NOPE, walmart is NOT there to make money! They are there to make a PROFIT! So they have to spend less than they take in. And walmart knows as well as anyone that they can't raise their prices too much, or people will start to shop elsewhere.

BTW why doesn't anyone speak against the rout that the new definition of full time has caused? It INSTANTLY devalued the real value of minimum wage! They talk about "UNINTENDED CIRCUMSTANCES"! YEP, and I am DAFFY DUCK! What did I say earlier? What was it? OH YEAH.....

"Since regulations, spoilage, pilferage, theft, taxes, will ensure costs remain high, UNLESS they go abroad and put people out of work, or CUT WAGES or LAY PEOPLE OFF, THEY will have to INCREASE PRICES!!!!!!!!"

I guess various places know they can't raise prices enough, so they cut back hours and laid people off.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8726890].message }}

taskemann

12 years ago

Use the same type of color paint on everything, everywhere?

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8727757].message }}

whateverpedia 12 years ago

Originally Posted by taskemann

Use the same type of color paint on everything, everywhere?

Very clever.
- Thanks
Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
So that blind people can hate them as well.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8727798].message }}
seasoned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by taskemann

Use the same type of color paint on everything, everywhere?

I don't know if this is what you are talking about, but ford is famous for saying that you could have any color you want, as long as it is black.

Ford created a product that was relatively rare and historically expensive. There was a piece of patent vulture SCUM that took an OBVIOUS and PREEXISTING concept and slapped an engine on it that worked in a certain way. Since they knew LITTLE about this, they apparently didn't bother to even ATTEMPT to sell it. Until maybe a decade ago, you could revise patents, and automatically EXTEND them! They did that like 16 times. Anyway, they claimed that their "patent" included the entirety of the car, and threatened to sue ANYONE that they didn't approve. Those approved, had to pay a percentage. FORD was TURNED DOWN! He managed to run it through the courts and proved that the patent was only valid for part of a certain type of engine, and ford wasn't using that. A year before the invalid, and invalidly extended, patent was to expire, FORD WON! Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THAT helped to drive host costs down. Luckily, throughout the suit, ford built cars. He competed against a race car, and won, which lowered costs MORE. He created an assembly line, which helped him get workers, and sped things up, lowering costs MORE!

He DID work to hit a target price, and probably planned accordingly. But he certainly did NOT pay 100%+ of what he made in any particular year. Had he done so, Ford wouldn't be around today. Many suggest places like walmart should pay 100%!

Anyway, ford:
1. Had a KNOWN MARKET!
2. Managed to lower costs more than his competitors.
3. Had a HIGH TICKET ITEM.
4. Had few real competitors.
5. Almost certainly could pay people from the profits on only pieces they worked on.
6. REDUCED NEEDED SKILL! Building a car can be complicated. Turning a few screws, or putting in a carburetor ISN'T!

So it isn't like a place like walmart where a greeter might not bring in a penny, and salespeople may be wasting time, etc.... The last time I went into best buy, a few people were shooting the breeze. I went there since it seemed to be the ONLY place open. They told me to go to another checkout lane, and I did. I had to patiently wait while THEY got set up. They were PAID for that time! Had I been in a hurry, or more disgusted, they would have LOST A SALE!!!!!!

Which reminds me! I once wrote a program for a furniture guild. One thing on it was a sort of voucher. The worker would turn in the vouchers, and be paid for the pieces they worked on. I wonder how many places are doing that, and how they report it. Piece work - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8727814].message }}
- whateverpedia 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by seasoned
  
  I don't know if this is what you are talking about, but ford is famous for saying that you could have any color you want, as long as it is black.
  
  I think that is exactly what he's talking about.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
  So that blind people can hate them as well.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8727820].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

A lot of pivoting but...

Not a lot about the ECONOMIC merits or non merits of Ford's ECONOMIC policies and the effect on individuals and the national economy if one of the large retailers decided to do something of the same as Ford.

Will a move like Ford's by present day large American national retailers destroy the national economy?

Will it help the national economy?

Will inflation go bonkers?

Would other large retailers follow their lead?

What would happen to their stock price?

Would they gain more shoppers?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8727901].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

A lot of pivoting but...

Not a lot about the ECONOMIC merits or non merits of Ford's policies and the effect on individuals and the national economy if one of the large retailers decided to do something of the same as Ford.

OVER TIME....

Will a move like Ford's by present day large national retailers destroy the national economy?

FIRST, ford and walmart are TOTALLY DIFFERENT!

FORD.... HIGH priced product, HIGH ACCEPTANCE, basically SKILLED WORK, LOW INFLATION, NO NEGATIVE EXTERNAL IMPACT!

WALMART.... Mostly LOW priced product, LOW ACCEPTANCE(SURE, you may say but they sell SO much! Well, it is GENERIC! You raise the price on peas, someone will likely go someplace else, etc.... That was NOT the case with FORD!), NON SKILLED, HIGH INFLATION, HIGH NEGATIVE EXTERNAL IMPACT!

Oh SURE, you may say "But they BOTH sell!!!!!!"! Yeah, so does CBS, PLANTERS, everyone here to some degree, etc.... The question is WHAT AND WHEN, NOT HOW!

BTW the GOVERNMENT recognizes walmart and ford are different!

FORD is classified as an automobile manufacturer. <<<MANUFACTURER
WALMART is a general merchandise/grocery retailer. <<<EFFECTIVELY A SERVICE

Will it help the national economy?

NOPE! In fact short term it could really HURT!

Will inflation go bonkers?

Relative to such wages, it is possible.

Would other large retailers follow their lead?

Only if FORCED to, but that will help inflation go up!

What would happen to their stock price?

Depends on the above, but paying a higher wage is highly unlikely to have a GOOD impact on their stock price!

Would they gain more shoppers?

Maybe short term, to show that the shoppers the idea of wages "going up", etc....

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728002].message }}

socialentry

Banned 12 years ago

Hmmmmm....

If I read between the lines

a military coup here would be more then appropriate.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728023].message }}

Kay King

12 years ago

A company couldn't do the "same as Ford" today - they would be out of business in a matter of weeks most likely just from the federal charges if nothing else.

The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees' homes to ensure that they were doing things the "American way." They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think - Forbes

It's an interesting perspective when you consider the workers today who complain if they can't use their cell phone or ipad at work and think employers cross the line if they don't allow personal internet use while at work.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728053].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees' homes to ensure that they were doing things the "American way." They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

IMAGINE if they heard that TODAY!!!!!

Half pay and half bonus? YIKES!
Assimilate? ******NEVER******
No gambling or drinking? *****ARE YOU NUTS?*****
Men were expected to keep a standard home? ******SEXIST******
Women were only given the bonus if they were single and supporting a family?......

Frankly, I am all for the first four. The last was just along the lines of societal norms. MANY businesses were like that.

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728103].message }}

seasoned 12 years ago

BTW Danish companies now often INSIST local workers learn Danish! at least some Dutch companies often INSIST local workers learn Dutch! Switzerland requires government representatives to speak like 2 or 3 of the 4 OFFICIAL languages. Like it or not, a standard way of communicating IS the best way.

Many countries, perhaps all, DO have rules to learn the local language.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728120].message }}

LarryC

12 years ago

We can debate about the politics and economics of Walmart, but what better place is there to experience some old fashioned holiday spirit, especially on Black Friday?

Black Friday Walmart Stampede 2012 !!!! Fights...

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728123].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

We can debate about the politics and economics of Walmart, but what better place is there to experience some old fashioned holiday spirit, especially on Black Friday?

Black Friday Walmart Stampede 2012 !!!! Fights !!!! - YouTube

You call this holiday spirit!?!?!?!?

UNREAL!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728200].message }}

socialentry

Banned 12 years ago

What in the world do they want to buy so bad?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728179].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

What in the world do they want to buy so bad?

Maybe it's a "free phone". USUALLY, it is SNEAKERS!

For DECADES, PERHAPS hundreds of years, etc... Stores have sold some popular things even BELOW COST! Since there is NO point to do so, and doing so would BANKRUPT THEM, they often place them in a key part of the store, provide only a limited amount, and ADVERTISE THE HECK out of them! The idea is to cause inside traffic to skyrocket and HOPEFULLY get increased sales on items they get a profit on. That is part of the reason why they are called LOSS LEADERS! Of course, one HOPES that traffic is STILL limited, and that people are REASONABLE! HERE, NEITHER case was true!

Walmart has turned up the heat even MORE this year! They have promised, at least publicly, that they will honor ALL advertised prices for the first hour! This means there will be MORE traffic, and people will be struggling even after stock may be LONG GONE!

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728218].message }}

whateverpedia

12 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

For DECADES, PERHAPS hundreds of years, etc... Stores have sold some popular things even BELOW COST! Since there is NO point to do so, and doing so would BANKRUPT THEM, they often place them in a key part of the store, provide only a limited amount, and ADVERTISE THE HECK out of them! The idea is to cause inside traffic to skyrocket and HOPEFULLY get increased sales on items they get a profit on. That is part of the reason why they are called LOSS LEADERS!

I wouldn't have a clue what supermarkets in the US are like, but here the traditional "loss leaders" are staple items like bread and milk. They lose money on these in the hope that the customer buys some of the "value-added" products. And yes, they do place these staples in "strategic" locations in the supermarket, ie right at the back of it, so that customers have to walk past all these tempting value-added products in order to get to the staples. Then they have to walk all the way back again (past the high margin products) to get to the checkouts.

It's actually quite clever, although a pain in the arse for someone who just wants a loaf of bread.

Thanks

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728302].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

In the US, they ALSO often put the milk in the back of the store, for the SAME reason, to drive traffic! MOST have their own section for breads.

HERE, a lot of products, like milk, are subsidized, by the government. Wikipedia says this stopped in the early 1990s though. In fact, a running joke in the US is that they subsidize SO much milk that some stored is actually changed to CHEESE!

Government cheese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CHEESE, of course, is basically, often, stabilized predigested casein protein from milk and thus has most of the nutritional value of milk in a form that can keep for a long time.

This might be one reason why, until JUST THIS YEAR, the bill controlling such subsidies was tied to a welfare bill. Only a few months ago, they were separated to break an impasse.

Still, such a loss leader is NOT like walmarts non food products. WHY?

1. LOWER PRICE ITEMS, so the store can afford it.
2. FAST MOVERS, so the store doesn't often have stale stock.
3. It is industry wide, so all stores have the same conditions, and people won't GANG UP on one store.
4. It is DAILY, so traffic will be spread over a period of time during the year, as opposed to a couple hours.
5. BESIDES, most people buying milk DO buy other things!

BTW I don't know if the US government subsidizes bread, but they DO subsidize grains!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728480].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

One more thing! It is interesting that the US has to subsidize milk, etc... With milk, we import a LOT of milk! We even import POISONED milk from CHINA, as concentrated whey!!!!!! If only they had ways to test, track, and process milk, the US could possibly export as much milk TO china as we currently import FROM them.

ALSO, interesting fact! WHEY is also a BYPRODUCT of CHEESE manufacture!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728509].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

I should have known Forbes or some other RW outfit would have an counter article.

That is the way of the internet.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728789].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I should have known Forbes or some other RW outfit would have an counter article.

That is the way of the internet.

FACE IT!

1. Your article contradicted ITSELF!
2. WHY are we discussing theories that were tried in their current state *****HUNDREDS***** of years ago, and were proven FALSE! And when I say hundreds, I do mean hundreds. YEP, they predate even the formation of the US. HELL, part of the reason the US was created was because those plans failed. In the BIBLE such people are denigrated by people in the OT AND NT! And Robin Hood didn't REALLY steal from the rich and give to the poor. Look at the movies, or even a lot of the myth and legend. It was stealing from the unjust government and given back to the disenfranchised people that, to a fair degree, ended up paying the "tax". Do you realize that a person that had 1,000,000 in 1830 had the buying power of someone with $19607843.14 in 2002? In 2019, that is estimated to be worth $49,235,294.12. So, in 2019, $1 may be worth about $.02(1830)!!!!!! http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/f...cf17742008.pdf UNREAL!

In popular culture, Robin Hood is typically seen as a contemporary and supporter of the late-12th-century king Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry during the misrule of Richard's brother John while Richard was away at the Third Crusade. This view first gained currency in the 16th century.[15] It is not supported by the earliest ballads. The early compilation, A Gest of Robyn Hode, names the king as "Edward"; and while it does show Robin Hood accepting the King's pardon, he later repudiates it and returns to the greenwood.
The oldest surviving ballad, Robin Hood and the Monk, gives even less support to the picture of Robin Hood as a partisan of the true king. The setting of the early ballads is usually attributed by scholars to either the 13th century or the 14th, although it is recognised they are not necessarily historically consistent.[16]
The early ballads are also quite clear on Robin Hood's social status: he is a yeoman. While the precise meaning of this term changed over time, including free retainers of an aristocrat and small landholders, it always referred to commoners. The essence of it in the present context was "neither a knight nor a peasant or 'husbonde' but something in between".[17] We know that artisans (such as millers) were among those regarded as "yeomen" in the 14th century.[18] From the 16th century on, there were attempts to elevate Robin Hood to the nobility and in two extremely influential plays Anthony Munday presented him at the very end of the 16th century as the Earl of Huntingdon, as he is still commonly presented in modern times.[19]

Other parts speak of how one should compensate the yeomen.

BTW apparently yeoman in every instance I have seen has been a person that owned a farm. Rich or poor is really not the question. That makes sense as they have, historically, paid the highest taxes. You can't very well claim not to own your land, and nobility has always been about land ownership, so peasants are seen as RENTING the land for what is called a TAX. Such stories are replete with mentions of assayers happening by and collecting a tax that may even include a payment to them. And nobility, historically, has been quick to enforce it through what some may call WAR.

Wikipedia:

The Yeoman was a social class in England from the Elizabethan era to the 17th century of a free man who owned his own farm. Yeoman was also a rank or position in a noble household, with titles such as Yeoman of the Chamber, Yeoman of the Crown, Yeoman Usher, and King's Yeoman. Most of these, including the Yeomen of the Guard, had the duty of protecting the sovereign and other dignitaries as a bodyguard, and carrying out various duties for the sovereign as assigned to his office.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728908].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

One more thing! It is interesting that the US has to subsidize milk, etc... With milk, we import a LOT of milk! We even import POISONED milk from CHINA, as concentrated whey!!!!!! If only they had ways to test, track, and process milk, the US could possibly export as much milk TO china as we currently import FROM them.

ALSO, interesting fact! WHEY is also a BYPRODUCT of CHEESE manufacture!

Steve

Most milk produced here is poison. Between the rBGH and all the antibiotics in it, it's scary stuff to drink.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I should have known Forbes or some other RW outfit would have an counter article.

That is the way of the internet.

Imagine that. A RW article that explains the fallacies of a LW outfit's article:rolleyes:

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728919].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Most milk produced here is poison. Between the rBGH and all the antibiotics in it, it's scary stuff to drink.

You're right, but I am talking about somehow INTENTIONAL, like cadmium, lead, nickle, etc...

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729034].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

You're right, but I am talking about somehow INTENTIONAL, like cadmium, lead, nickle, etc...

Steve

They are intentional

Then we have arsenic in chicken from their feed, also intentional.
Not to mention Glyphosate in our corn, soy, and cotton oil. One of those three are in almost any processed food you eat and soda you drink.
I won't get into what's in our tap water.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729063].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

They are intentional

Then we have arsenic in chicken from their feed, also intentional.
Not to mention Glyphosate in our corn, soy, and cotton oil. One of those three are in almost any processed food you eat and soda you drink.
I won't get into what's in our tap water.

OK, YOU WIN! The US is BAD! WHY make it WORSE?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729158].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

OK, YOU WIN! The US is BAD! WHY make it WORSE?

Steve

I didn't know it was a contest

I never said the US was bad. The people are great.
The govt. on the other hand, not so much

That's a good question, why make it worse.
I keep asking my lib friends the same question

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729300].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I didn't know it was a contest

I never said the US was bad. The people are great.
The govt. on the other hand, not so much

That's a good question, why make it worse.
I keep asking my lib friends the same question

Well, some neighbors are helping me in ways I never even asked for. A woman came over to make sure I was OK when I got home from the hospital. Eventually her dog helped me when I got locked out of my home. HECK, a coworker once helped me get to/from the hospital for a test and even bought me dinner! A FRIEND offered to take time off and fly to my state to help me out if needed! So YEAH, there are some nice people.

I did say how they could solve the chinese poisoning garbage, and even the GMO garbage, and I blame the government for that!

I WISH I could give more than only one thanks!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729403].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

12 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Well, some neighbors are helping me in ways I never even asked for. A woman came over to make sure I was OK when I got home from the hospital. Eventually her dog helped me when I got locked out of my home.

Is the dog a locksmith?

Sorry Steve, sometimes I just can't help myself. :-D

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729539].message }}

seasoned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Is the dog a locksmith?

Sorry Steve, sometimes I just can't help myself. :-D

I was wondering if someone would ask. NOPE! He let me know they were there, and gave me an in so I could call a locksmith. MY phone was out of power, and I was locked out. My options were sleep in the garage all night or walk two miles, HOPE there was a working toll phone, and call for a taxi to stay at a hotel.

I have a policy of really trying to not do things like wakeup people. So knocking on doors, etc.... was out of the question. But asking a couple, that just came home, for a minor favor was fine. Luckily that couple just got home from a wedding they attended.

Steve
- [ 2 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729575].message }}

yukon

Banned 12 years ago

That article is two faced, on one hand they want to increase min. wage for Walmart employees, on the other hand they want to pull a Henry Ford & get the employees to give the pay raise right back to Walmart.

Henry Ford did what southern cotton mills did when they created mill towns, only instead of renting mill houses to employees he used automobiles which was a luxury item at the time.

BTW, Walmart stock has increased +16.97% YTD, doesn't look like Walmart is hurting.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729413].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

That article is two faced, on one hand they want to increase min. wage for Walmart employees, on the other hand they want to pull a Henry Ford & get the employees to give the pay raise right back to Walmart.

Henry Ford did what southern cotton mills did when they created mill towns, only instead of renting mill houses to employees he used automobiles which was a luxury item at the time.

BTW, Walmart stock has increased +16.97% YTD, doesn't look like Walmart is hurting.

Actually, pretty much the whole stock market is up for the year. 16.97% is actually not that much in comparison. The dow jones is up over 25% for the year. The S&P 500 is up over 30% for the year. WMT up over 18%.

Still, a small increase, especially if, in the scheme of things is modest, may not make a difference, and it will take a while. SEVERAL states/districts have a minimum wage of $8.25! California,MASSACHUSETTS are $8. CONNECTICUT, D.C., ILLINOIS, NEBRASKA are 8.25. Oregon is $8.95%. VERMONT is $8.60. Washington(*****STATE*****) is $9.19. These are only states that are $8 or more.

The desire for walmart stock is probably mostly driven by the dividend WHICH, by the way, may drive the price of stock UP artificially until the exdividend date, when it then DROPS and starts the cycle all over. Raising the costs TOO much may affect the dividend and the perception of that possibility WILL drive the price of the stock down.

And Ford DID drive the cost of automobiles down. They STILL cost a LOT, but they were far more affordable, and better.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729569].message }}

yukon

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Actually, pretty much the whole stock market is up for the year. 16.97% is actually not that much in comparison. The dow jones is up over 25% for the year. The S&P 500 is up over 30% for the year. WMT up over 18%.

Still, a small increase, especially if, in the scheme of things is modest, may not make a difference, and it will take a while. SEVERAL states/districts have a minimum wage of $8.25! California,MASSACHUSETTS are $8. CONNECTICUT, D.C., ILLINOIS, NEBRASKA are 8.25. Oregon is $8.95%. VERMONT is $8.60. Washington(*****STATE*****) is $9.19. These are only states that are $8 or more.

The desire for walmart stock is probably mostly driven by the dividend WHICH, by the way, may drive the price of stock UP artificially until the exdividend date, when it then DROPS and starts the cycle all over. Raising the costs TOO much may affect the dividend and the perception of that possibility WILL drive the price of the stock down.

And Ford DID drive the cost of automobiles down. They STILL cost a LOT, but they were far more affordable, and better.

Steve

Doesn't matter what the employees are paid, Walmart or any other business with any sense will pass the pay increase on to customers. Walmart will not take a hit in their own pocket.

What we've got here is failure to communicate, I don't like it any more than you men.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729576].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Doesn't matter what the employees are paid, Walmart or any other business with any sense will pass the pay increase on to customers. Walmart will not take a hit in their own pocket.

What we have here is failure to communicate, I don't like it anymore than you men.

Well, walmart can only increase costs so much before they have to increase prices. Increasing prices can trigger inflation and they can only do it so much before competitors may get market share. So they ARE walking a tightrope!

Any decent store will try to get the best deals from providers, and give prices to customers that are low enough to get a good turnaround. A chunk of the spread has to be used to pay infrastructure, pilferage, theft, regulations, expansion, reserves. The REMAINDER is then used to pay salaries. THERE TOO, they need enough people to ensure the jobs get done, and the more people they have, the lower the average wage must be.

It is really SAD that many just figure if you buy something for $4, you can sell it for $4.10, and make $.10 profit. The fact is that that may not even pay for REPLACEMENT STOCK even if you had NO other costs! In an environment like today, they probably want like 5% for replacement, which makes their REAL base cost for that $4 item like $4.20. Companies DO have other costs though.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8729594].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Maybe you folks are right.

Maybe unskilled labor shouldn't make decent money even if some large retailers are making money hand-over fist.

The large pool of the unemployed helps give companies lots of leverage over workers and most are using that leverage.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8730563].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Maybe you folks are right.

Maybe unskilled labor shouldn't make decent money even if some large retailers are making money hand-over fist.

The large pool of the unemployed helps give companies lots of leverage over workers and most are using that leverage.

It's simply supply and demand.
I remember back in the early 70's and late 60's there was a shortage of labor. Companies offered good wages and benefits because there were more jobs then people that could fill them.
Today it's the opposite.
Look at it like this. When you buy gasoline for your car, are you going to pay $4 a gal. when the same gas is $3 a gal at the next station?
When a company has a job opening and only a couple people apply, the company knows they may have to raise the starting pay or increase the benefit package to attract more applicants.
When they have 1,000 people apply they know they that someone will take the job at whatever pay rate they offer.
When a person needs a job and there aren't many available they will take what they can get. When jobs are plentiful then the person can be more picky.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8730619].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

It's simply supply and demand.
I remember back in the early 70's and late 60's there was a shortage of labor. Companies offered good wages and benefits because there were more jobs then people that could fill them.
Today it's the opposite.
Look at it like this. When you buy gasoline for your car, are you going to pay $4 a gal. when the same gas is $3 a gal at the next station?
When a company has a job opening and only a couple people apply, the company knows they may have to raise the starting pay or increase the benefit package to attract more applicants.
When they have 1,000 people apply they know they that someone will take the job at whatever pay rate they offer.
When a person needs a job and there aren't many available they will take what they can get. When jobs are plentiful then the person can be more picky.

Yea and a company like Costco could take advantage of the tight or should I say loose labor market but they have simply chosen not to.

The Greatest Generation Was Also The Luckiest Generation:

The post WW2 American people were very, very lucky because after WW2, unskilled labor had a big part if not the biggest part in building the great American middle class.

If history is any indicator, most businesses only do what they has to do or is forced to do in terms of improving working conditions for employees.

One Of The Unluckiest Generations:

Unfortunately for the modern day group of unskilled American labor, the job market isn't in their favor and neither are the sympathies of a large part of the American population.

I think large corporate America really wants the job market to stay right where it is - even get a little worse - but not bad enough to endanger their profits.

Profits are sky high and the labor pool is quite desperate.

I think they're working hard to prevent the US economy from achieving a full recovery since a full recovery would mean that jobs would be plentiful and the present day labor situation would be reversed.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8733110].message }}

Kay King

12 years ago

You can't compare the Greatest Generation to the people today - and make any sense at all.

The Greatest Generation was raised in deprivation of the Great Depression - they fought a war in conditions we can't even imagine today. They worked what jobs they could to provide for their family - and they created families units. They were frugal, abhorred debt, fixed what was broken and made do with what they could afford.

They didn't approve of divorce, out of wedlock children, laziness, wastefulness, etc - so we think of them as repressed and old fashioned. Maybe they just had more common sense.

There are many arguments that make sense when it comes to increasing wages - this isn't one of them.

modern day group of unskilled American labor

The problem is so many in the modern day group have chosen to be unskilled and gradually the public is coming to resent that. If people choose not to study or want to drop out of school and have kids they can't support, it's their choice. But it isn't a necessity today. Having a child is a choice in a country where birth control is freely available - getting an education is free. It gets harder to find sympathy for people who don't help themselves but expect others to take care of them.

I think a turning point in public opinion was in 2012 when DHS effectively shut down the work for welfare program started in the mid-90's. The program had worked well but DHS decided it was too much to ask people on the dole (who were able) to work for their benefits.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8733437].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

You can't compare the Greatest Generation to the people today - and make any sense at all.

The Greatest Generation was raised in deprivation of the Great Depression - they fought a war in conditions we can't even imagine today. They worked what jobs they could to provide for their family - and they created families units. They were frugal, abhorred debt, fixed what was broken and made do with what they could afford.

They didn't approve of divorce, out of wedlock children, laziness, wastefulness, etc - so we think of them as repressed and old fashioned. Maybe they just had more common sense.

There are many arguments that make sense when it comes to increasing wages - this isn't one of them.

The problem is so many in the modern day group have chosen to be unskilled and gradually the public is coming to resent that. If people choose not to study or want to drop out of school and have kids they can't support, it's their choice. But it isn't a necessity today. Having a child is a choice in a country where birth control is freely available - getting an education is free. It gets harder to find sympathy for people who don't help themselves but expect others to take care of them.

I think a turning point in public opinion was in 2012 when DHS effectively shut down the work for welfare program started in the mid-90's. The program had worked well but DHS decided it was too much to ask people on the dole (who were able) to work for their benefits.

All I did was compare the after WW2 job market & economic conditions - verses today's job market and economic conditions.

And I still say the after WW2 crowd was very fortunate the job market and economic conditions forced companies to treat unskilled labor well because you and I both know the great American middle class would not have been born if it had been left up to corporate America.

You said...

There are many arguments that make sense when it comes to increasing wages - this isn't one of them.

I say...

Really? I'd love to hear just one from you.

How about productivity?

How about it's good for the entire economy which could really use a shot in the arm.

How about it won't destroy companies?

How about its the right thing to do?

How about inflation won't go crazy if it happens?

How about it'll lift millions out of official poverty?

How about it would get many working people off some gov dole?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8733515].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

All I did was compare the after WW2 job market - verses today's job market.

And I still say they were very fortunate the job market and economic conditions forced companies to treat them well because you and I both know the great American middle class would not have been born if it had been left up to corporate America.

Except nobody forced those companies to treat their workers better or give them a decent wage. It was just good business decisions for them at that time.
Also there wasn't nearly as much govt. regulation as there is today, which helped keep costs down. When govt. stepped in with regulating the market and providing subsidies, companies responded with higher prices and only giving employees what was required by govt. regulations.
I'm not saying all regulations are bad, just most of them.
It costs companies to comply to govt. regs., look what happened to our healthcare system after govt. stepped in and started guaranteeing payments (medicare and medicaid). costs to consumers sored and charity hospitals and doctors who would do charity care all but disappeared. The market no longer dictated the price they could charge. By the way did you know it's illegal for a doctor or hospital to do charity work if they except medicaid and medicare?
Thanks to govt. regulations there are all sorts of hidden costs to businesses that you don't think about. For example for every $400 an employee makes the company has to give the govt. $30 in S.S. contributions.
When the govt. forces companies to give the govt. money because they have employees, the employees are the ones who suffer for it.
What Costco does it does voluntarily. It invests in it's employees for the long term. But here's one difference between Costco and Walmart. At 60 years old, it's doubtful Costco would hire me, on the other hand there's a very good chance Walmart would. Same goes for untrained and uneducated people.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8733679].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Except nobody forced those companies to treat their workers better or give them a decent wage. It was just good business decisions for them at that time.

Also there wasn't nearly as much govt. regulation as there is today, which helped keep costs down. When govt. stepped in with regulating the market and providing subsidies, companies responded with higher prices and only giving employees what was required by govt. regulations.
I'm not saying all regulations are bad, just most of them.
It costs companies to comply to govt. regs., look what happened to our healthcare system after govt. stepped in and started guaranteeing payments (medicare and medicaid). costs to consumers sored and charity hospitals and doctors who would do charity care all but disappeared. The market no longer dictated the price they could charge. By the way did you know it's illegal for a doctor or hospital to do charity work if they except medicaid and medicare?
Thanks to govt. regulations there are all sorts of hidden costs to businesses that you don't think about. For example for every $400 an employee makes the company has to give the govt. $30 in S.S. contributions.
When the govt. forces companies to give the govt. money because they have employees, the employees are the ones who suffer for it.
What Costco does it does voluntarily. It invests in it's employees for the long term. But here's one difference between Costco and Walmart. At 60 years old, it's doubtful Costco would hire me, on the other hand there's a very good chance Walmart would. Same goes for untrained and uneducated people.

I didn't say 'somebody' forced companies to do the right thing.

I said it was market conditions that forced them and you said as much when you said this above...

"It's simply supply and demand.

I remember back in the early 70's and late 60's there was a shortage of labor.

Companies offered good wages and benefits because there were more jobs then people that could fill them.

Today it's the opposite.

Look at it like this. When you buy gasoline for your car, are you going to pay $4 a gal. when the same gas is $3 a gal at the next station?

When a company has a job opening and only a couple people apply, the company knows they may have to raise the starting pay or increase the benefit package to attract more applicants.

When they have 1,000 people apply they know they that someone will take the job at whatever pay rate they offer.

When a person needs a job and there aren't many available they will take what they can get.

When jobs are plentiful then the person can be more picky."

Are you saying none of the above applied right after WW2 and into the 60s, 70s but it applies now?

BTW...

The other stuff is most interesting and you forgot about the wonderful role of HMOs in our health care system.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8733725].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I didn't say 'somebody' forced companies to do the right thing.

I said it was market conditions that forced them and you said as much when you said this above...

"It's simply supply and demand.

I remember back in the early 70's and late 60's there was a shortage of labor.

Companies offered good wages and benefits because there were more jobs then people that could fill them.

Today it's the opposite.

Look at it like this. When you buy gasoline for your car, are you going to pay $4 a gal. when the same gas is $3 a gal at the next station?

When a company has a job opening and only a couple people apply, the company knows they may have to raise the starting pay or increase the benefit package to attract more applicants.

When they have 1,000 people apply they know they that someone will take the job at whatever pay rate they offer.

When a person needs a job and there aren't many available they will take what they can get.

When jobs are plentiful then the person can be more picky."

Are you saying none of the above applied right after WW2 and into the 60s, 70s but it applies now?

BTW...

The other stuff is most interesting and you forgot about the wonderful role of HMOs in our health care system.

Forced was a bad choice of words on my part for the business decisions made in the 60's and 70's. Also not all companies provided good employee packages to attract employees. Fast Food companies used flexible schedules to attract high school and college students. In those days working at McDonalds was what you did while in school not a full time career like it is today for many who don't have the education or skills to get a better job. McD's and other F.F. joints also utilize retired people who can't make it on their S.S. or just want to stay active. Much like Walmart does.
HMO's are another result of govt. interference in healthcare.
Have you ever noticed that things that aren't covered by ins. tend to have their costs go down instead of up? Look at contacts and laser eye surgery for two examples. Neither are covered by medicaid or medicare or most other ins. programs, both have seen their cost to the consumer go down since they were introduced.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8733812].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Forced was a bad choice of words on my part for the business decisions made in the 60's and 70's. Also not all companies provided good employee packages to attract employees. Fast Food companies used flexible schedules to attract high school and college students. In those days working at McDonalds was what you did while in school not a full time career like it is today for many who don't have the education or skills to get a better job. McD's and other F.F. joints also utilize retired people who can't make it on their S.S. or just want to stay active. Much like Walmart does.

EXACTLY!

HMO's are another result of govt. interference in healthcare.
Have you ever noticed that things that aren't covered by ins. tend to have their costs go down instead of up? Look at contacts and laser eye surgery for two examples. Neither are covered by medicaid or medicare or most other ins. programs, both have seen their cost to the consumer go down since they were introduced.

YEP, good examples!

As for HMOS? They spend a lot of money upfront and have doctors, etc... as employees.

It is kind of a WIN/WIN/WIN/LOSE! The HOSPITALS, DOCTORS, and residents THERE WIN! People like ME LOSE, because we are likely to have to go out of network. People might be surprised at what president authorized HMOs in 1973!

Anyway, it is a lower price because they have features that lower their cost!

And you have to be CAREFUL when dealing with some special things. One agency is ALL OVER to lower costs on an operation that is often relatively quick and safe, though they are pushing it more and more so there is a greater chance of DEATH! They recently took their "case" to the supreme court, and the SCOTUS sent them back to a lower court. WHY? Because the state wants them to have at least one doctor available at all times with admitting privileges to a local hospital, so they recently passed a law! The agency considers saving the cost of one person's salary more important than possibly saving their customer's LIVES!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8734421].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

I DID post here a couple times about constantly meeting some people, that seemed low class , flying to northern california every week. One week, I heard them talking about "their kids"!!!!!!!! I HAD to get the scoop! I ASKED!

WHO were they? BUS DRIVERS!!!!!!!!!! YEP, people in SOUTHERN california flying HUNDREDS of miles to NORTHERN california to DRIVE SCHOOL BUSSES!

WHY? Because they were paid a RIDICULOUSLY high wage! WHY? Because there weren't enough drivers in northern california. They ALSO paid for the flight, and HOTEL! STAR BUCKS was offering over $20/hour there for people to serve coffee ALSO!!

WHY didn't it create inflation?!?!?!? GLAD YOU ASKED! *****IT DID*****! The prices there went sky high! Northern california cost over 3 times as much as Southern california. And THAT is why those drivers, etc... didn't simply MOVE!

As for the unemployment? The fast tracked immigration, worker visas, reduced full time definition, and increased regulations, have caused REAL unemployment to SKYROCKET! They have NOTHING to do with wages, other than to drive the salaries of higher paid workers DOWN! There are fewer of the higher paid workers, they are skilled, and they often make/save more than they are paid, so they have less of an impact on inflation.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8730674].message }}

What Large Retailers Can Learn From Henry Ford...

Trending Topics

Why 2026 could be the year of anti-AI marketing

Don't set new years resolutions

How to add Backlink ? I am under thread of losing the job

Is Off-page SEO become hard as Ai Energizes

Which Social Platform Is Giving You the Best ROI This Year?