• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Anybody still think the economy has turned the corner?

RadicalDude

Social Justice Warlord
So you think because people are in favor of solutions borne out of free market capitalism versus those of the government, that they condone the actions like those surrounding the Ford Pinto. Please. We are under no illusion that companies will sometimes pursue unethical means. Companies are run by humans and humans are fallible. But that is not cause to give the government more control over your life and certainly doesn't give you permission to control more of mine.

No, I am not saying you condone those actions (nice straw man though.) I am simply stating that it is government regulation (not complete control) which has taken us from Upton Sinclair's Jungle to OSHA & FDA. I'd call that an improvement.
 

Random8145

Registered User
No, I am not saying you condone those actions (nice straw man though.) I am simply stating that it is government regulation (not complete control) which has taken us from Upton Sinclair's Jungle to OSHA & FDA. I'd call that an improvement.

Although the food industry needed regulation, the big meat-packing companies actually supported legislation such as the Meat Inspection Act and I believe the Pure Food and Drug Act, because they knew the compliance costs would hurt the smaller meat packers.
 

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
No, I am not saying you condone those actions (nice straw man though.) I am simply stating that it is government regulation (not complete control) which has taken us from Upton Sinclair's Jungle to OSHA & FDA. I'd call that an improvement.
So then it reasons to be that more government regulation and involvement would certainly be better, right? If a little is good, a lot must be better.
 

PropAddict

Now with even more awesome!
pilot
Contributor
So then it reasons to be that more government regulation and involvement would certainly be better, right? If a little is good, a lot must be better.

No, that would be an improper application of inductive reasoning. A logical fallacy, even.

God, I love teh internets.
 

exhelodrvr

Well-Known Member
pilot
You make government seem as this evil entity that is concerned with sucking the life out of the people. The same individuals running government will be the same individuals running your privatized industries. The only difference is the fact that they hold their allegiance to different entities.

The big difference is that if corporations don't give the consumers what they want, the corporations go out of business. How many government programs ever get stopped because they are ineffective?
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The big difference is that if corporations don't give the consumers what they want, the corporations go out of business. How many government programs ever get stopped because they are ineffective?

18th ammendment? :D

Brett
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
Random said:
And corporations must only put profits above all else to the extent that they are within the law. Doing things like forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions need to be illegal.
I disagree with such laws, along with minimum wage laws.

The labor market is like any other market -- it is subject to the laws of supply and demand. If a company is known to hire workers and place them in unsafe conditions, less people will want to work there. The company will then have to either A) raise wages or B) make the conditions safer.

Considering that profit motive will drive every company to want to expand (whether or not its feesible is a different story, and many decide not to for various legitimate reasons), a good labor market for your business is important. Additionally, employee turnover is extremely costly. Finally, its in a company's best interest to attract the highest quality of workers possible. Therefore, it behooves companies to provide its employees with competitive wages (competitive being relative to the rest of the industry, of course) and safe working conditions.

How many companies actually pay its workers the minimum wage? Not many. Most companies are voluntarily paying employees more than minimum wage for the above reasons. But a raising minimum wage trickles up to make everything more expensive, then other employers must raise their salaries to compensate, and thus we will continue to perpetually have a relatively high unemployment rate, even when times are "good."

In my dream world, companies would re-negotiate salaries every 2-3 years similar to the way sports works. If you don't produce, your salary can down. If you do produce, your salary can go up. Too bad there'd be too many class action lawsuits of "waahhh you lowered my salary because I'm [insert subgroup here]."

Although the food industry needed regulation, the big meat-packing companies actually supported legislation such as the Meat Inspection Act and I believe the Pure Food and Drug Act, because they knew the compliance costs would hurt the smaller meat packers.
I support safety regulation of food simply because it's impossible for consumers to test its quality prior to purchasing it. We really have no idea how meat was handled prior to making it to the shelf in the supermarket, and we have no realistic way of finding this out. Yea, we can make a visual inspection (and most people do), but bacteria and viruses that arise from poor handling often aren't visible.

@Clux;

We don't need to protect the "little man" like your cartoon suggests. Economies of scale actually produce cheaper goods for consumers. Take a look at Walmart, for example. Are you suggesting that big government needs to drive up prices at Walmart so that the mom-and-pop's store paying their neighbor's daughter $10/hour to work a register and charge more for the same products can stay in business? If Walmart were ever to drive up its pricing or not provide the goods that consumers demand, it would pave the way for other businesses to make headway into the low-end retail store market. We see this example in the tech industry with Microsoft vs. Apple. In the mid-late 90s, virtually no one had a mac. Now Mac controls roughly 10-15% of the PC market because Windows put out a shitty line of OS b/w Win 98 and Win 7... Mac still has a minority (they'd probably have more if Mac didn't charge a premium for their fancy, chic image and proprietary accessories, but I digress), but much more than they had 10 years ago.
 

Random8145

Registered User
I disagree with such laws, along with minimum wage laws.

I am with you on minimum wage laws, they are nothing but a price control on workers, and price them out of the market, thus yanking up the unemployment rate.

The labor market is like any other market -- it is subject to the laws of supply and demand. If a company is known to hire workers and place them in unsafe conditions, less people will want to work there. The company will then have to either A) raise wages or B) make the conditions safer.

I get what you are saying, but I don't think it works that squeaky clean in the real world. For example, during the 19th century companies did all sorts of evils to workers, but people worked at them nonetheless. That is what led to the rise of the labor unions initially.

There was a letter a wife of a worker wrote to Henry Ford about the conditions at his factory, talking about how her husband was forced to work so hard, with no bathroom break the entire workday (or else lose your job), the bad conditions, etc...many supervisors of such factories just regarded workers no different than machine parts, i.e. hire it, work it as hard as possible, then when it wears out completely or breaks, replace it.

Ford fixed a lot of this, and killed the possibility of potentially unionizing his factory, with the $5 dollar workday and improved working conditions. This had the effect he claimed, in that it raised productivity because far more people were willing to work at the factory.

Considering that profit motive will drive every company to want to expand (whether or not its feesible is a different story, and many decide not to for various legitimate reasons), a good labor market for your business is important. Additionally, employee turnover is extremely costly. Finally, its in a company's best interest to attract the highest quality of workers possible. Therefore, it behooves companies to provide its employees with competitive wages (competitive being relative to the rest of the industry, of course) and safe working conditions.

In a developed free-market system, I agree, but in a developing market economy, especially with a ready supply of workers, working conditions can be horrendous. Especially with industrial jobs on an assembly line, where only the lowest-quality workers are required.

Remember, they would chain up children to the machinery in those days even.

As the economy develops however, businesses tend to do a lot more like you say, offering good wages and safe working conditions for the workers because if not they will get so much bad press no one will work at them plus possibly regulations made against them.

I think what is needed are light and efficient regulation and laws. Laissez-faire, IMO, is the ideal, but you can never quite get there. It's like government. No government is an ideal, but you need it nonetheless.

How many companies actually pay its workers the minimum wage? Not many. Most companies are voluntarily paying employees more than minimum wage for the above reasons. But a raising minimum wage trickles up to make everything more expensive, then other employers must raise their salaries to compensate, and thus we will continue to perpetually have a relatively high unemployment rate, even when times are "good."

Yup.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
Random,

I am not an anti-union guy per se. I hate what many unions have become, but as you pointed out, unions started as a way for workers to organize in order to gain better working conditions. They got together and said "hey, this is really fucked up...so we're not going to work for you until you give us a lunch break and make our working conditions safer."

None of this requires government intervention, though. The man you reference was not forced to do anything; he chose to work in those conditions as opposed to the alternative. It wasn't until the formation of workers unions where people started to be ballsy enough to accept temporary unemployment on a large scale to effect change, and that's when they got it.

You pointed out that Ford voluntarily made working conditions better in his factories for productivity sake. He didn't need the government to tell him to do it, he realized on his own that it was the smart thing to do.

The thing is, unions today are largely obsolete. Like you point out, our economy is much more developed, and there are umptysquat studies about how keeping your employees happy raises productivity. Productivity = profit.

Additionally, developing economies are a transition state. There are not enough jobs for everyone to have one, so the supply/demand curve for the labor pool is shifted way toward supply. As business start to expand in these economies, it will start to even out and conditions will improve. It may not be as fast as you and I would like, but it doesn't require government intervention.

Child labor is a different ballgame.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
None of this requires government intervention, though. The man you reference was not forced to do anything; he chose to work in those conditions as opposed to the alternative. It wasn't until the formation of workers unions where people started to be ballsy enough to accept temporary unemployment on a large scale to effect change, and that's when they got it.

That sounds great while we're typing comfortably in front of our computers, but when the alternative for said worker is starvation for him and his family, it's not really a choice anymore. Like Random said, it's not always that squeaky clean. History is replete with abuses by employers, particularly during times when they know they have the workers cornered between bare subsistence wages and starvation. Sometimes, government regulation is the only way to protect people who have no alternatives and no ally to stand up for their interests.

Read "Grapes of Wrath" if you want a taste of the subsistence worker's reality during the 30s. Not a very pretty picture.

Brett
 

Catmando

Keep your knots up.
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
The thing is, unions today are largely obsolete. Like you point out, our economy is much more developed, and there are umptysquat studies about how keeping your employees happy raises productivity. Productivity = profit.
........
Sort of makes one wonder why the heavily unionized airlines in general, and the highly educated and skilled airline pilots in particular - many of whom are former military - still cling to a collective bargaining and grievance processing system that is supposedly "obsolete" doesn't it?
 

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
History is replete with abuses by employers, particularly during times when they know they have the workers cornered between bare subsistence wages and starvation. Sometimes, government regulation is the only way to protect people who have no alternatives and no ally to stand up for their interests.
So you're an advocate of the minimum wage I take it?
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
....I am not an anti-union guy per se ... I hate what many unions have become....
Soooooooooooooooo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o, younger Bruddah:

Which 'unions' do you approve of ... ???

Sorry to end a 'sentence' w/ a preposition ... but HEY!!! This is JUST a fuckin' internet forum, yea-as ... ??? :):sleep_125
 
Top