quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Is there a glut of supply now?

Yes. Haven't you heard that the reason the economy is so moribund is there is a lack of demand?

Lack of demand is why the economy sucks? Says who?

The world bank
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/10/18372136/demand-collapse-or-credit-crunch-firms-evidence-world-banks-financial-crisis-survey-eastern-Europe
The Guardian editorial board
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/09/observer-editorial-economic-recovery
The NBER
http://www.nber.org/digest/dec10/w16174.html
And of course thousands more if you take a look at google.

It's nothing against them, but I don't care that demand in Britain or Eastern Europe is low. I don't care if it's high, either.

The NBER is looking at conditions pre-Recession and comparing them to during the Recession. That makes the assumption that pre-Recession levels (you know, during the bubble) were correct.

That a Country relies so much on US continued consumption is a concern for the Citizens of that country, or it's businesses, not us. Our reduced demand could be exactly where our demand should be. It almost seems as if you're talking about increasing demand to take care of other countries economies, too. And, I'm willing to bet you're all for increasing domestic production through raising the cost of imports, which will reduce demand for those same countries' exports.

Which is it, Ken? Should US demand for imports be higher to help the rest of the world out, or should we raise the cost of imports (reducing demand for imports) to bring production back to the US? You can't have both.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Is there a glut of supply now?

Yes. Haven't you heard that the reason the economy is so moribund is there is a lack of demand?

Lack of demand is why the economy sucks? Says who?

The world bank
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/10/18372136/demand-collapse-or-credit-crunch-firms-evidence-world-banks-financial-crisis-survey-eastern-Europe
The Guardian editorial board
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/09/observer-editorial-economic-recovery
The NBER
http://www.nber.org/digest/dec10/w16174.html
And of course thousands more if you take a look at google.

It's nothing against them, but I don't care that demand in Britain or Eastern Europe is low. I don't care if it's high, either.
The NBER is looking at conditions pre-Recession and comparing them to during the Recession. That makes the assumption that pre-Recession levels (you know, during the bubble) were correct.
That a Country relies so much on US continued consumption is a concern for the Citizens of that country, or it's businesses, not us. Our reduced demand could be exactly where our demand should be. It almost seems as if you're talking about increasing demand to take care of other countries economies, too. And, I'm willing to bet you're all for increasing domestic production through raising the cost of imports, which will reduce demand for those same countries' exports.
Which is it, Ken? Should US demand for imports be higher to help the rest of the world out, or should we raise the cost of imports (reducing demand for imports) to bring production back to the US? You can't have both.

Demand worldwide is fucked up as I showed. That is why the world wide economy is not rebounding. You are welcome to go find your own sources since the most reputable source available in the world did not satisfy you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Making an overhaul of your system (like buying a new machine that can do more than the one it is replacing) is a capital expense that has to be expended by the company. If that new machine is what is causing the higher productivity, what basis does the employee have for demanding higher wages, when his input hasn't changed at all?

And that capital expense is usually only justified because of the incresed returns that would pay for itself and even more profit.
And, more complex machinery often requires a slightly higher/different skill level and/or intelligence to run it or maintain it.

In the case where a higher level of skill is required, pay should definitely reflect that. I have no problems with that. None at all. But, if there is not an increase in the skill level of the employee, what's the basis for an increase in wages?

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Making an overhaul of your system (like buying a new machine that can do more than the one it is replacing) is a capital expense that has to be expended by the company. If that new machine is what is causing the higher productivity, what basis does the employee have for demanding higher wages, when his input hasn't changed at all?

And that capital expense is usually only justified because of the incresed returns that would pay for itself and even more profit.
And, more complex machinery often requires a slightly higher/different skill level and/or intelligence to run it or maintain it

In the case where a higher level of skill is required, pay should definitely reflect that. I have no problems with that. None at all. But, if there is not an increase in the skill level of the employee, what's the basis for an increase in wages?

If one employee used to be able to make their employer $50 of profit per hour and can now make $100 per hour.... I think it's only fair for that employee to be paid more, even if they don't have to do twice as much physical labor per hour.
Sooner or later we're going to the get to the point where very little human labor or oversight is going to be required to manufacture goods, mine raw materials, harvest food, etc. If those handful of workers are still getting paid $15/hour and working 40 hours per week, there won't be jobs to go around and we're going to turn into a massive welfare state. If instead, we pay people based on productivity, I think everybody will be able to work like 10 hours a week for what would now be a full-time wage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Making an overhaul of your system (like buying a new machine that can do more than the one it is replacing) is a capital expense that has to be expended by the company. If that new machine is what is causing the higher productivity, what basis does the employee have for demanding higher wages, when his input hasn't changed at all?

And that capital expense is usually only justified because of the incresed returns that would pay for itself and even more profit.
And, more complex machinery often requires a slightly higher/different skill level and/or intelligence to run it or maintain it.

In the case where a higher level of skill is required, pay should definitely reflect that. I have no problems with that. None at all. But, if there is not an increase in the skill level of the employee, what's the basis for an increase in wages?

If one employee used to be able to make their employer $50 of profit per hour and can now make $100 per hour.... I think it's only fair for that employee to be paid more, even if they don't have to do twice as much physical labor per hour.

Sooner or later we're going to the get to the point where very little human labor or oversight is going to be required to manufacture goods, mine raw materials, harvest food, etc. If those handful of workers are still getting paid $15/hour and working 40 hours per week, there won't be jobs to go around and we're going to turn into a massive welfare state. If instead, we pay people based on productivity, I think everybody will be able to work like 10 hours a week for what would now be a full-time wage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

What I'm finding odd and laughable, is the fact that a lot (if not most) churches are also a registered charity.
And while many local organisations do help local people to some extent, the expenditure on that help compared to what they rake in via the plate, donations, and tax loopholes, pales into insignificance.

The churches are some of the richest organisations in the world and always have been.
They often have more liquid assets and land than many governments.
And they have the friggin cheek to ask people to give money to fix a roof or something??
Why can't they dip into their own pockets. It's not like they can't afford it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Grace, if we could simply eliminate the word 'fair' from our vocabulary, I think it would go a long way toward eliminating this kind of thinking.

One has to wonder why you are not in favor of fair play?
We have rules for football that describe what is fair and what is not.
We have the constitution to tell us what is fair..ie:no fair killing one another.

When someone complains it isn't fair - its always germane to say - "fair to who?"

Since you wish to do away with fairness then it matters not.

Is it "fair" when unions slash tires, and use force or the threat of force to extract higher wages? I don't think so.

Unions withold their labor in order to extract higher wages....if management or labor engages in illegal behavior that is why there are cops.



Is it fair for American airlines employees to call in sick, or to have work slow downs in order to get better contracts?
In a country without slavery any behavior that is allowed by the contract is legal.

Fair has nothing to do with life, or business.

I take it from this statement that you are not a christian or an american constitutionalist. If one reads the federalist papers and the anti federalist papers we find constant references to fairness....christians never shut up about being fair. Your candor in pointing out your disgust at the concept of fairness is to be appreciated.

Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%.

You have been shown the inaccuracy of this statement.

So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

State monopolies like the edison co., I believe, work on 5%

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



I take it from this statement that you are not a christian .




Quote it. Anywhere in the n rew testament that says im wrong.

I made the observation that you are not a christian or an american constitutionalist. What has the new testament have to do with that observation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments
And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.
And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments
And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.
And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

Is it also a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by the process to his employees, too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments
And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.
And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

Is it also a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by the process to his employees, too?

Is it not the employees that implement the process?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments
And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.
And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

Is it also a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by the process to his employees, too?

Is it not the employees that implement the process?

Again. Its not a question of fairness.

It should be a case of rational business interest. A business exists to make the owner a reasonable return on his money.
That return - more or less - is revenues minus costs.

One of those costs is labor.

GE has shown time and time again - it pays to get the best people for the job - so it pays to recruit and pay them.
Paying a good wage for a good employee is in the employer's interest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments
And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.
And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

Is it also a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by the process to his employees, too?

Is it not the employees that implement the process?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Making an overhaul of your system (like buying a new machine that can do more than the one it is replacing) is a capital expense that has to be expended by the company. If that new machine is what is causing the higher productivity, what basis does the employee have for demanding higher wages, when his input hasn't changed at all?

And that capital expense is usually only justified because of the incresed returns that would pay for itself and even more profit.
And, more complex machinery often requires a slightly higher/different skill level and/or intelligence to run it or maintain it

In the case where a higher level of skill is required, pay should definitely reflect that. I have no problems with that. None at all. But, if there is not an increase in the skill level of the employee, what's the basis for an increase in wages?

If one employee used to be able to make their employer $50 of profit per hour and can now make $100 per hour.... I think it's only fair for that employee to be paid more, even if they don't have to do twice as much physical labor per hour.
Sooner or later we're going to the get to the point where very little human labor or oversight is going to be required to manufacture goods, mine raw materials, harvest food, etc. If those handful of workers are still getting paid $15/hour and working 40 hours per week, there won't be jobs to go around and we're going to turn into a massive welfare state. If instead, we pay people based on productivity, I think everybody will be able to work like 10 hours a week for what would now be a full-time wage.

But, there was no risk on the part of the employee. The employer took the initiative and risked the capital. There is nothing more differentiating the employee from the next applicant. The pool of potential employees that can do the same job hasn't changed at all. Improving the skills of the employee does change the labor pool. If XYZ Manufacturing paid 40 employees $15/hr., and upgraded to automation, allowing for only 10 employees required to maintain the same production level, are you saying that it would be "right" to pay those remaining 10 employees $60/hr., even if the skills required aren't greater than they were before automation?

Increasing capital investment, then, would only allow for greater supply, which would have a general tendency to reduce the overall price in the Market. Not only does the employer have to pay for that capital investment, but now, it would also have to increase the wages of the employees, without there being any increase in productivity of the individual worker. They aren't necessarily working harder or at a higher skill level. That's not how it works, and I'm damn glad it doesn't work that way.

Imagine if a machine were to break down. The employees would accept a pay cut until the machine is back up and running, right? I mean, their productivity would be reduced, potentially to zero.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
:) As usual, logically put :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments

And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.

And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.