Rexnord Bearing Officially Decides To Move Hundreds Of Indianapolis Jobs To Mexico Trump???

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Aazadan

What you describe is a self defeating scenario.

Hourly people used to have power with unions. Labor is just as important as leadership from CEOs. But with no ability to walk out and have many, many other industries walk with you, you can't force the gains in productivity to be shared with the labor side of the equation.

So with no union no contract, no contract no union and exploitation sets in, as we are seeing. I think that was the plan when the air traffic controllers were fired.

When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers there was a shutter through the unions, and look at pay and benefits since the Reagan pres.

Unions aren't coming back though. My industry has been trying to unionize for two decades and it's on the higher end of the pay scale, and we already have some leverage just based on employer need (Computer Science related jobs). Unionizing is still nearly impossible.

I don't think that's the fix. In my opinion the whole problem stems from the fact that we have more qualified people than we have jobs. This makes things an employer market. If we were to encourage people to leave the work force through other programs (more 1 income families, welfare programs for those who don't want to work, or lowering the work week). We could increase wages simply through decreasing the labor pool. The downside is that this results in half the population being dependent on the other half.

a reply to: Aazadan

Great points, I can't imagine a business wanting to do any. Most won't put in day care are work, or think twice about wages that have stagnated for 35 years. Getting corps to do what eventually will have to be done will take a act of God.

a reply to: tinner07

originally posted by: MOMof3
That is disheartening. That is a huge wage gap and I don't know how americans can compete. Cut corporate taxes and slash wages to $3/hr. How do we sustain our country going that direction.

No problem. Americans make better products.
Their motivation? Their ability to sustain a better quality of life for themselves and their children.
Additionally,some Mexican products are dangerous to use.
Automotive: blog.caranddriver.com...
Cosmetics: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Food products: www.nbclosangeles.com...
amarillo.com...
Vanilla Extract: www.fda.gov...

a reply to: seasonal

You can solve it using a form of "Maximum Ratio of Wages". Implement a Maximum ratio from the Highest paid to the lowest paid employee. This removes many other problems too. You wouldn't need unions at that point for one thing because wages would rise or fall across the board depending upon the profits being made. You can still make as much money as possible but it wouldn't just increase for those at the top. If they want more money then everyone below them would make more as well.

Also giving companies tax breaks wouldn't mean only those at the top benefit from it. The way it is now, by giving tax breaks only those at the top see any difference. It basically removes outside influence from the equation. It creates a true "Trickle down" of profits by ensuring that everyone benefits when profits are good. It also means everyone has a stake in the profits being made. Everyone gets more when they make more and everyone gets less when profits are down. Those at the top still make more than those below them but at an acceptable ratio. Not 500 times those below them.

Maximum Ratio

a reply to: mOjOm

I am embarrassed to say I have never heard of this, thank you.

Much studying will now take place.

a reply to: mOjOm

Maximum wage ratios don't work, because small businesses which make up half the employers in the country don't have hugely disproportionate wages. At a random mom and pop shop the owners might be pulling in $35/hour while their cashier is pulling in $10/hour. A ratio of 3.5. If you implement a max wage law, you in turn say the $10/hour employee can be justifiably paid less based on what a large corporation like Walmart is doing.

Another issue with the maximum wage is that some positions don't generate a lot of revenue. Lets take a subway sandwich maker. It takes about 5 minutes to make a sandwich, which means that an employee shouldn't be expected to make more than 12 sandwiches per hour. At an average of $7 per footlong that's $84 in revenue per hour that the employee brings in. Lets say 1/3 of that is profit. That means the employee brings in $28. How much of that should the sandwich maker pocket? The franchise owner is only seeing maybe $1 of that from each employee, but between multiple franchises, probably has 150 employees, so that owner makes it up through volume. The actual sandwich makers are seeing $10 of that, and the managers probably around $5 and the rest gets reinvested.

This is one of the issues with a maximum wage, because relative to the value you're bringing to the company, the lower level the job, the higher the percent is being taken. If you're bringing a business $28/hour and taking $10, you're already pocketing more than a third of the revenue for zero risk. For contrast lets look at a well paying field like programming, you'll usually make about 100k in one of those jobs, but your revenue to the company will be around 2-3 million. So you're only being paid 3-5% of what you bring in.

The maximum wage sounds good, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

originally posted by: MOMof3
That is disheartening. That is a huge wage gap and I don't know how americans can compete. Cut corporate taxes and slash wages to $3/hr. How do we sustain our country going that direction.

Well when Joe Hammer Co stop making hammers for his neighbors and decided his goal was to put a hammer in the hand of every person in the world.......

a reply to: seasonal

Seems to me that there is an fragile web that has been woven, and with the new media, the fragile web mayy be starting to fall.

What exactly is this "New Media"?

I've been working in media, TV, films, commercials both broadcast and www for 14 years. Media is just a platform to hang advertising on. I'ts capitalism....

Show me a "new media" job that pays my union scale and I'll sign up immediately as a producer, director, PA, writer, grip, gaffer, Camera, reporter, anything....

The only "new media" I'm aware of is the web based platform for film.

I'm in a studio as we speak. Writing copy, researching, looking for stories of human interest. Guess what one of my primary sources is....and 75% of what I write never gets aired.

a reply to: olaru12
If you are paid to report the media you will be controlled.

We are the new media, you and I. We decide, becasue we are smart what we think is news.

This is very scary to large corps/wealthy men who own the news, and make no mistake they own the old news media.

Decentralized control of news will be the unspoken reason that we will loose a free internet.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: olaru12
If you are paid to report the media you will be controlled.

We are the new media, you and I. We decide, becasue we are smart what we think is news.

This is very scary to large corps/wealthy men who own the news, and make no mistake they own the old news media.

Decentralized control of news will be the unspoken reason that we will loose a free internet.

We don't have a free internet now. We have Google. They are building a yuggggeeee data, server, base of operations here in Tamalewood.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a free and independent news source but I don't think the Corporate oligarchy will allow it.
I don't see it as being so much political as economic and I don't see the networks scared in the least.

Start up a cable news channel. Like Ted Turner did....I'll contrubute.

a reply to: Logarock

What about shareholders when company wants to go global? Don't they take away a lot of a company's profits?

a reply to: MOMof3
Some would argue that the shareholders enable a company to build and offer more innovative products through their investments.