|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-21 22:47, MagicSanta wrote: As I mentioned before, I believe the U.S. has signed far fewer free trade agreements than many think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat......reements What does free trade have to do with China, for instance? You signed no free trade agreement with it. I'm sure there is something you can legitimately blame, some sort of trade agreement perhaps, but I am not convinced that "free trade" agreements are necessarily anything more than a scapegoat. Because there are very few actual "free trade" agreements to speak of. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_trade_agreements Israel: Israel – United States Free Trade Agreement (incl. Palestinian Authority; 1985) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (incl. Canada and Mexico; 1994) Jordan: Jordan – United States Free Trade Agreement (2001) Australia: Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (2004) Chile: Chile - United States Free Trade Agreement (2004) Singapore: Singapore – United States Free Trade Agreement (2004) Bahrain: Bahrain – United States Free Trade Agreement (2006) Morocco: Morocco - United States Free Trade Agreement (2006) Oman: Oman – United States Free Trade Agreement (2006) Peru: Peru – United States Trade Promotion Agreement (2007) Panama: Panama - United States Trade Promotion Agreement (2011) Colombia: Colombia - United States Trade Promotion Agreement (2011) South Korea: Republic of Korea - United States Free Trade Agreement (2011)
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Jeff wrote: "My former neighbor had a good union job building tool and die parts. The job is now outsourced. According to him, he would have gladly taken a cut and kept his job.
There's a big difference between living on slave wages and understanding that it's a reality in life that if we aren't ready to make concessions here as workers, there will always be people in other countries who are. It's just common sense. " Jeff, your friend was in fact confirming that his choice was to be exploited--work for less than he deserved--or have no job. The only reason it's a "reality" is because policy makes it so. Tariffs on imports, cuts to corporate subsidies, strong unions, making corps pay taxes on overseas profits are just some ways the balance can be rectified. And I think you need to see just who is living in all those mansions. I guarantee you there are more corporate CEOs and top management than union workers. Even union officers make nowhere near the amounts that the heads of top corporations do. Let's focus on who the real greedy are.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Jeff J. Special user Connecticut 787 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-22 07:38, landmark wrote: I suppose you can call it what you like. That doesn't change the fact that because his union refused the cut in pay the company needed to keep the workers here in the country, he's still unemployed after almost 2 years. You may say he would get "less than he desrves", but considering he's the one not working and struggling to not be homeless, he would disagree with you. We talked in detail about it. Sure, he may not get what you or him feel is "fair", but how fair is it that he didn't have a choice to take a cut in pay, so instead of living frugal, he's dead broke? It's easy to tell other people that they have a right to this or that, but you aren't paying their bills or raising their children. It's up to THEM to decide what it takes to survive, not for some stranger they never met to determine their financial fate. The union people aren't homeless. They are just fine. It's those who are getting put out of work because they have no choice in the matter who are suffering. I've always been pro-union, but I'm not an idiot. The days of cushy union jobs have sailed. The jobs other countries are willing to do are only growing. I don't like it, but I can't bury my head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist and isn't just going to get worse. Your views about tariffs and such are antiquated. Been there, done that. In the end, look where we are? It's just not realistic anymore to think that imposing a fee on other countries is going to bring jobs back here. It made sense a few decades ago before we lived in a world that we could buy whatever we want on the computer. The world has changed, and it's not going to go back to the old days. The world is changing whether or not we change along with it. |
|||||||||
Intrepid Inner circle Silver Spring, MD 1178 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-22 07:29, landmark wrote: The fate of under performers is that they can no longer attract the capital needed to stay in business and either need to improve their profit margin or end up being sold and merged into another company. The fate of over performers is that competition will inevitable copy their strategy and try to under cut their market. Again, I'm not saying that is a good or a bad thing, and it isn't meant to be a defence of corporations in any way it's just the reality of how free markets work when consumers are free to choose. Over time profit margins revert to a mean.
Bob
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Not if the business men are the too big to jail.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
A few things. No there are no a large number of trade agreements but as I refered to before the congress wit presidential sign off started changing regulations in the late 80's which removed obsticles to US companies moving their manufacturing overseas. Products that were restricted for sale to China suddenly could be built there. Clinton signed off when congress decided it was okay for items once considered vital to US interest could also go offshore. Chaching! Heck, we now have companies that exist as a name only and produce nothing but income.
Unions are another story. Some are flacid and exist to exist. Others are so entrenched they won't bend even a little, 'i will give up my free dental when they pry my unemploment check from my cold dead fingers' then you have the mega unions that cannot have their jobs outsourced cuz the run ports etc. I do admit when I met a lovely young lady years ago at Lockheed. She made copies. She also got the pay of a mahinest cuz to be in that blgd she had to join the union. She was 18 and complained that she might be underpaid. We told her a none to bright 18 year old making over $20 an hour was good and to never quit her job. Tariffs won't bring in the jobs the consumer gets to pay them. What it does do is bring the cost closer to domestic goods, if that industry exist in any manner. One thing fun about the economy is if you still have a job you think it is some alien abstract. When you are destroyed by it then it is very personal and real. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-22 07:38, landmark wrote: What's your point of reference for how much he "deserved"? Is this true by definition? There's no possible employer/employee agreed-upon wage without union intervention that isn't "exploitation"?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
We were talking about a situation where wages were being cut.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
I'm not sure how that affects that analysis. Assuming there is some magic number that the employees "deserved" to be paid, perhaps they were getting paid more than the deserve before the cuts.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Not if both sides agreed to it, by your calculus.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
What about by yours? If someone takes a job for $x per hour, is possible that it's more than (the minimum figure that) he "deserves"?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Why would an employer pay more than what an employee is worth? O Brave New World that has such people in it...
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
It sort of depends on where the notions of "worth" come from. As a practical matter, it's probably impossible to pinpoint exactly what an employee is "worth." I think that some of the factors are intangible. So, one possibility (if as a thought exercise we're assuming that there actually IS a specific figure, even if the employer can't ascertain it) is that the employer has overestimated the value of the employee. By "paying more than the employee is worth," I don't mean that the employer is losing money on the employee.
Another possibility is that the employer is paying more than the employee is worth because the employer anticipates an increase in the employee's value when he gets up to speed on the job. This is almost certainly the case with new attorneys, for instance. Another possibility is that the alternatives are unattractive, which is sort of the flip side of the probable answer if you asked why an employee would work for less than he was worth. For the employee, an answer might be that there aren't better opportunities around; for the employer, the answer might be that there isn't a readily available work force. You could certainly argue that means the employee IS, in fact, worth more than we thought, but the flip side to that argument is that it's the same for the employee - if nobody else is willing to pay you any more, than the worker ISN'T "worth more." If you define "worth" as a price that is agreeable to both employer and employee, then there is not a single figure, but a range. If you start out at the high end of that range, you could get a pay cut and still be in the range of what you're worth. For instance, an employee might be willing to work for anything over $50,000 and the employer might be willing to pay anything below $70,000. If they agree to $60,000, then the employer is paying more than (the minimum that) the employee is "worth." I think it mostly comes down to the notion of "worth," "value," or "deserves."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-23 00:49, landmark wrote: Reminds me of that twilight zone where a factory manager was automating the place and at the end...
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Just wondering how you anti corporate people like things (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |