The Obama Presidency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave is ok

Well paid employees are happier. Happier employees are more productive

---

And in turn, they become fitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojack

Not always true. Many products are sold for much higher costs than production costs regardless of market clout of the company. A movie with 10 mil. budget will still sell the same 8 buck ticket. Abercrombie jeans most likely do not cost much more to make than Faded Glory from Wal-Mart. Snap On makes a fortune selling hillariously over priced tools. Gillette razor blades any one?

Mainstream cars yes you're right that competition (some of the fiercest of any industry) has done this. This doesn't transfer over to many industries though.

---

How would you say Abercrombie isn't leveraging their brand name? That is pretty much all they are leveraging. They have a monopoly on the name Abercrombie, people pay for this monopoly, profit. Really, if you want to see where the money is really going in the traditional sense, they took a risk with creating a brand, leveraged their artistic and marketing skill, and lucked out in a payoff. They could have failed, as many clothing companies do, and that is the loss associated with the risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FirstBlood

Didn't most American auto makers lose a ton of business/reputation because the Japanese were constantly outclassing them in the quality/reliability department? And couldn't that be attributed to a bunch of overpaid union workers doing a worse job than a bunch of poorly paid asians? I mean obviously they also failed as far as poor marketing/adapting went but I thought the whole quality control issue was still pretty huge.

---

We actually studied this in economics while I was in Japan. IIRC it was an American who revolutionized quality control over there, but he wasn't listed to over here. They still have an award in his honor I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony

I never liked the idea of the gold standard because it reduced the ability of governments to attempt to mitigate the effects of depressions, as far as I can tell.

---

You are correct. And you are also one of the very few who seems to "get it" on a consistent basis on this board. If you'd like, I can forward on research and books that would expound on your intuitive statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

I'm arguing that saying "hey lets raise the pay because they got the money" is a stupid and retarded generalization. I stopped caring about your point after you dredged that retarded remark out. It has little substance and is liberal dreck.

---

This doesn't even make any sense to what we were talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

Btw, eat my dick. Your ego in regards to everything business has gotten absurd since you started freelancing and doing your own thing. I'm glad you're doing what you want and make money at it, but you come off like a pompous stupid twit.

---

You tend to say that when you make dumb comments to people who actually know. And you know why I know so much about auto unions and this subject in particular? I do work for Ford consistently. I know people who work in Ford HQ (in Detroit) on a first name basis. I don't tend to gloat about any of this around here. If I talk about business like I know what I'm talking about it's because I have some experience and success in it. I wouldn't expect anything less of haoh, either.

I took the same stance Yoshi did about a year and a half ago when the shit hit the fan with the auto sector. (paying unions = more money for the company to use!) But when you look at the actual operations of an American automaker that isn't true at all. One of my colleagues showed me the structure of the company and how these companies are structured. The unions didn't cause the slowdown in American sales. And them reducing their pay won't fix the problem. The problem, again, is that mgmt has to produce cars PEOPLE WANT TO BUY. Why do you think the Camaro, Challenger and Charger are hitting the market right now? It's because people like those brands. They sell. The new Camaro looks awesome (funny thing about working for a car company is that I secretly view all cars as tools, not toys).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

And fuck your idea of fair pay. I didn't go to college so I could make the same pay as someone flipping buttons and setting up car parts on an assembly line. And fuck the very idea that a factory worker should make DOUBLE what a non tenured college teacher makes. I don't give a shit if they do have kids. Some work is worth more than others.

---

This is the TRUE psychology behind your argument (and everyone elses).

I don't give a shit about your college. I don't even give a shit about my college. You get what you can get in life and do as little damage as possible to others. Some auto worker making 56k a year has ZERO baring on your existence or life. You're reacting like a bitchy little gossip girl. If someone gets 60k a year without college that is what the market says their worth. If you can't then... well... likewise. And the auto industry has been saying they're worth that for a long period of time. I say good for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FirstBlood

Didn't most American auto makers lose a ton of business/reputation because the Japanese were constantly outclassing them in the quality/reliability department? And couldn't that be attributed to a bunch of overpaid union workers doing a worse job than a bunch of poorly paid asians? I mean obviously they also failed as far as poor marketing/adapting went but I thought the whole quality control issue was still pretty huge.

---

Quality control is an issue (as well as reliability). But this isn't a screw loose here and there. It's the overall design of the car that doesn't hold up to mileage as well as the Japanese cars. So you're right. The difference here is that this failing does NOT fall upon the factory laborers and production. The problem is with the core design of the cars themselves. These designs are driven by management and car designers -- both white collar jobs. So essentially if the upper management at Ford decides they want to produce BadIdea-mobile the line workers produce it to spec. Some of the line managers would probably voice their issues with the design, but at the end of the day they have to produce. Their base responsibility is to produce it consistently on schedule. So this blame falls squarely on the shoulders of management (who make a TON of money, especially from bonuses. 56k a year to them is laughable). So if the union is told to make shittily engineered cars by upper management it's upper managements job to stop designing shittily engineered cars.

Telling the unions they make too much is basically scolding production for the fault of management. This is actually WHY the unions mandate so much control over who can be fired (and under what terms). The companies used to do exactly that - punish the working class to make up the losses caused by the upper brass. With the union rights the way they are it's actually the white collars who get slashed FIRST.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

This created more cost saving (1k to change a line over to a new car, compared to 10k) and they made Japanese workers feel like they were a greater part of the process (despite drew saying this only works for white collar workers).

---

1) I never said that. I said more money always tends to motivate increased productivity amongst blue collar workers. Not that a sense of accomplishment doesn't. What you're confusing is that I said white collar workers are the ones who experience a limitation to how much money you can give them before it becomes counter productive. Fulfillment is the ultimate motivator.

2) This example doesn't even illustrate your point. If an switch like this makes it easier to change a line how does this at all make the line worker feel more involved? It gives him something else to do while he's clocked in but it's still mandated by the needs of the production line. It's still management that decreed it was a better way. Lower cost + same production? Everybody wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

So essentially if the upper management at Ford decides they want to produce BadIdea-mobile the line workers produce it to spec. Some of the line managers would probably voice their issues with the design, but at the end of the day they have to produce. Their base responsibility is to produce it consistently on schedule. So this blame falls squarely on the shoulders of management

---

Doesn't the design itself have to take into account the amount of labor it would take to produce? You have overpaid workers, you have less flexibility and/or room for change/improvement?

How about a full time job just pays a living wage?

Leave all the super money to the people who care about that sort of thing.

Too many people care about that super money to ever be content with "a living wage".

I just want to pay my bills and buy an instrument once or twice a year.

That's literally all I want from work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gooch

You are correct. And you are also one of the very few who seems to "get it" on a consistent basis on this board. If you'd like, I can forward on research and books that would expound on your intuitive statement.

---

Oh thanks. Well I was an econ major and I actually really enjoy the subject, so I have read quite a bit about the various subjects already. I just try to maintain a humble tone about the sorts of things, because although I have studied it, it's really a very complex field that is not even fully fleshed out.

Honestly most of the questions and comments in this thread are refuted by econ 101 and 201 courses.

All that being said, I am always open to new ideas and research, but I already have a fairly decent foundation.