Labor Is The Superior Of Capital

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]When the strike finally ended the union pension plan did not happen.

The union workforce was reduced from about 50 to 10 people.

This place was known for paying the highest wages for machinists and welders in the county.

The union ruined it through greed.

As I said the unions have done good in the past but now they often take things too far and are just as bad as big business.[/quote]

So, you give us a tale of the union failing to abuse the company, and yet complain that unions are too powerful?

Hell, isn’t business adjustment to the situation, via outsourcing, simply finding a more economical means of doing business? Where is the problem here… the system works… an idiot working for his own self-interest, supposedly, failed in that endeavor.

Do you think self-interest does not drive the actions of company management, employees, unemployed and the rest of the world?

22

[quote]doogie wrote:
hspder wrote:

True. But have you noticed how your brain is actually the part of the body that consumes the LEAST energy and resources?

Wrong.

Although the brain represents only 2% of the body weight, it receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization. [/quote]

You were so eager to disagree you missed the point. We were comparing brain vs REST OF BODY. Not to the liver or any other organ specifically. The stats above say the brain consumes less than 50% of the output – much less, in fact. Hence, I was correct.

23

[quote]Kuz wrote:
But not a cent more? But isn’t that the purpose of market forces to begin with? To determine what the level of pay is for company leadership? I’m not sure how you would determine what that ideal level is independent of the market doing so for you.[/quote]

Yeah, right: Market Forces.

Don’t be naive. Execs define the salaries of execs. There are no “market forces” at play here, because it is in the best interest of the people who define the salaries to have them as HIGH as possible.

Market forces would be at play if the salaries were defined by people who had in their best interest that they would be as low as possible.

[quote]Kuz wrote:
And while I will admit there are likely some very overpaid top executives out there, I think people are kidding themselves if they believe most just seem to stumble into those jobs or that there is not a high degree of talent required to do that job well. In this business climate, there is very little room for forgiveness, especially for publicly traded companies. Either get it done or get out.[/quote]

Most CEOs have no talent other than knowing the right people. In the executive world, the maxim “it’s not about what you know, it’s about WHO you know is truer than in any other business”. Again, I deal with these people every day, so I know their “talents”.

The interesting thing is that stock holders realize that, and they’ll actually go as far as saying that they hire exactly based on contacts, because contacts bring business.

If you’re OK with Execs getting compensated in the millions of dollars a year just for knowing the right people, rather than through hard work and/or talent, go ahead. Maybe that’s the updated version of the “American Dream”: becoming rich through cocktail parties and meeting people in high places.

But let’s not pretend this has anything to do with the talent or hard work. That’s for losers.

24

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Fast forward to today - unions are just another breed of creature seeking entitlement. They are just another special interest. [/quote]

I have to hand it to you, thunder: you do a great job of regurgitating the party’s spiel. “Entitlement”? “Special Interest”? OMG.

There is a reason Arnold stopped using that spiel. Please follow his example, or it will be very hard for people to listen to you…

25

[quote]hspder wrote:
doogie wrote:
hspder wrote:

True. But have you noticed how your brain is actually the part of the body that consumes the LEAST energy and resources?

Wrong.

Although the brain represents only 2% of the body weight, it receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization.

You were so eager to disagree you missed the point. We were comparing brain vs REST OF BODY. Not to the liver or any other organ specifically. The stats above say the brain consumes less than 50% of the output – much less, in fact. Hence, I was correct.
[/quote]

Oh, I must not have understood that you thought it is fine for 2% (management) to consume up to 25% of the company’s energy and resources. Glad to have you onboard the Capital side.

26

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I wish I could magically push a button and get all the ‘Lefties’ to understand: Before you can distribute wealth, such as in social programs and the like, the WEALTH HAS TO BE CREATED. Who created it? Did the guy tweaking a bolt in a GM plant? Did the guy loading plants at a gardening center?

But before a company can sign a contract creating all these benefits, the wealth has to be there. Someone had to create it. Who?[/quote]

You really need to take some Econ classes.

WORKERS create wealth. WORKERS do it through their labor – mining coal, building a car or a house, fixing somebody’s computer, providing training to future workers, distributing food, etc.

Managers don’t create wealth. The job of managers is to enable WORKERS to create it and provide them incentives to create MORE.

You do that with positive reinforcement and benefits for WORKERS. Do I need to draw you a picture?

In regards to “creating wealth to provide benefits”, do I also need to explain to you the concept of investment? And, namely, of borrowing money to use it in higher-return investments?

27

[quote]hspder wrote:
doogie wrote:
hspder wrote:

True. But have you noticed how your brain is actually the part of the body that consumes the LEAST energy and resources?

Wrong.

Although the brain represents only 2% of the body weight, it receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization.

You were so eager to disagree you missed the point. We were comparing brain vs REST OF BODY. Not to the liver or any other organ specifically. The stats above say the brain consumes less than 50% of the output – much less, in fact. Hence, I was correct.
[/quote]

Is this representative of the average liberals logic? Just wondering…

28

[quote]lucasa wrote:
So then what are your thoughts as to why are we so much more productive (GDP/PPP) than other countries? Especially despite not necessarily being the most productive country on a per capita basis. These numbers and the historical fighting “tooth and nail” would seem to argue that if you want to be successful as a nation, supporting the individuals and/or unions that represent them isn’t necessarily the way to go.
[/quote]

American workers produce a lot because they work long hours. Simple as that. Germans, for example, still produce more per hour worked.

Unless you want to argue that having work take over your life and working over 50 hours a week is actually a good thing, I’m sorry, but there’s no way total productivity is a better measure of good management than productivity per hour.

That, along with lack of universal healthcare, pollution, and high crime rates, are the main reasons the US ranks so poorly in quality of life.

Are we so shallow that we think the only measure of a country – or of a person, for that matter – is wealth?

Where did our other values go?

Intelligence.
Creativity.
Hard work.
Health.
Generosity.
(Time to be with your) Family.
Freedom.
Democracy.

29

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I wish I could magically push a button and get all the ‘Lefties’ to understand: Before you can distribute wealth, such as in social programs and the like, the WEALTH HAS TO BE CREATED. Who created it? Did the guy tweaking a bolt in a GM plant? Did the guy loading plants at a gardening center?
[/quote]

If they didn’t, then who did? Maybe I missed your point here.

Provided they didn’t earn it? What’s that mean? When was the last time you saw a CEO in the coal mine? Headhunter, your beliefs mean you are supporting that fat cat. The CEO didn’t earn it. The man in mine did. The CEO deserves a cut, of course, but not a 30 million dollar bonus that he’s giving himself every year. When half the population of the world lives on less than a dollar a day, this is unexcusable.

Hence the purpose of unions, even indirectly. Too often in history, you see the workers absolutely pissed on while this capitalist took home everything. If it wasn’t for their own greed, they wouldn’t be in the predicament that they are in.

So they can blame their forfathers for ripping off the workers, because if they never had, there would be no need for solidarity.

And if the unions were to disband, who’s to say that history doesn’t repeat itself, with the bosses exploiting once again?

If someone is going to do that job, they deserve a livable wage. Not too mention that the Middle Ages were a bit of a different time- that whole “feudalism” thing (akin to slavery)

[quote]
The time of labor unions is over. They established good things that we all enjoy. They forced stubborn capitalists to share the wealth, and there’s no going back. But, their time is done. [/quote]

Maybe it has slowed in this country. But now is the time for unions in other countries, where sweatshops exist now as they did back in the early 20th century here. The time for organized labor will never be over unless capitalism is over.

30

[quote]DTLV wrote:

Anyway, public employee unions are fundamentally different from private sector unions for two main reasons. First, government does not have the profit motive that private sector employers do, so there is less downward pressure on employee compensation. Second, public employee unions are HUGE contributors to political parties and campaigns. The problem with this is that when the candidate that the union gave millions of dollars to wins (and, though they favor the Democrats, they give to both parties), at the next contract negotiation, the union is effectively sitting on BOTH sides of the table. Again, this is good for the union membership, and good for the politicians, but it’s a disaster for you, because you’re paying for it.

[/quote]

Unions support the Republicans? Really? I think you better check that one out. Organized labor is directly against the Republican agenda. And the AFL-CIO knows this. Watch yourself…

31

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DTLV wrote:

Anyway, public employee unions are fundamentally different from private sector unions for two main reasons. First, government does not have the profit motive that private sector employers do, so there is less downward pressure on employee compensation. Second, public employee unions are HUGE contributors to political parties and campaigns. The problem with this is that when the candidate that the union gave millions of dollars to wins (and, though they favor the Democrats, they give to both parties), at the next contract negotiation, the union is effectively sitting on BOTH sides of the table. Again, this is good for the union membership, and good for the politicians, but it’s a disaster for you, because you’re paying for it.

Unions support the Republicans? Really? I think you better check that one out. Organized labor is directly against the Republican agenda. And the AFL-CIO knows this. Watch yourself…[/quote]

http://www.publicintegrity.org/partylines/overview.aspx?act=con0&linkid=4133

Actually, AFL-CIO was more supportive of Republicans than Democrats in the state of New York. I was sort of surprised myself.

32

[quote]hspder wrote:
Kuz wrote:
But not a cent more? But isn’t that the purpose of market forces to begin with? To determine what the level of pay is for company leadership? I’m not sure how you would determine what that ideal level is independent of the market doing so for you.

Yeah, right: Market Forces.

Don’t be naive. Execs define the salaries of execs. There are no “market forces” at play here, because it is in the best interest of the people who define the salaries to have them as HIGH as possible.

Market forces would be at play if the salaries were defined by people who had in their best interest that they would be as low as possible.

Kuz wrote:
And while I will admit there are likely some very overpaid top executives out there, I think people are kidding themselves if they believe most just seem to stumble into those jobs or that there is not a high degree of talent required to do that job well. In this business climate, there is very little room for forgiveness, especially for publicly traded companies. Either get it done or get out.

Most CEOs have no talent other than knowing the right people. In the executive world, the maxim “it’s not about what you know, it’s about WHO you know is truer than in any other business”. Again, I deal with these people every day, so I know their “talents”.

The interesting thing is that stock holders realize that, and they’ll actually go as far as saying that they hire exactly based on contacts, because contacts bring business.

If you’re OK with Execs getting compensated in the millions of dollars a year just for knowing the right people, rather than through hard work and/or talent, go ahead. Maybe that’s the updated version of the “American Dream”: becoming rich through cocktail parties and meeting people in high places.

But let’s not pretend this has anything to do with the talent or hard work. That’s for losers.

[/quote]
I feel bad for you, then. You’ve apparently met very few (if any) of the executives for the company for whom I work. I don’t work in an academic context and look down my nose at all of the future managers of America (as you did in your previous post). I actually work amongst them on a daily basis for a Fortune 50 company. If you honestly think that these guys can just dictate their own salaries all the time, you’re either looking at a very small fraction of companies or are far too entrenched in your own views to see what else is out there. I could be wrong on this, but that kind of attitude strikes me as someone who has spent most of their career in an academic context vs. in a private corporate one.

People who are great shmoozers but without a shred of strategic vision will inevitably drive their company into horrific financial results… and getting kicked out the door when the stock tanks.

Market forces.

Kuz

33

[quote]doogie wrote:
Oh, I must not have understood that you thought it is fine for 2% (management) to consume up to 25% of the company’s energy and resources. Glad to have you onboard the Capital side.
[/quote]

First of all, the metaphor was sarcastic (not that I expect you to understand sarcasm) – in no way I think today’s execs have the importance and the prevalence the brain has in our body. In fact, CEOs are found more easily than a qualified experienced blue-collar worker. Some companies change CEOs every year. It’s not like retaining them is important. How often have you changed your brain?

But I’ll humor you for a moment, and let’s use a simple example to try out your theory.

The overall national average salary is around $65k these days.

Let’s assume a small (100-worker) company with 2 execs. If the company makes, say, $8.5M a year, that would mean the 2 execs would make 25% of total ($1M each) and the 98 employees $65k a year each, which is right in line with the national average.

To give you an idea, even without counting the stock options – which make up the biggest chunk of exec income – the national average base+bonus for exacts is $940k. Yes, just base+bonus, not counting any benefits, including stock options.

Most execs, if you include base, bonus AND stock options get around $20M each a year.

Don’t believe me? Just pick a few companies and check the exec’s trading records (that are made public to because of insider trading laws).

So, EVEN if execs were as important to a company as the brain is to our body, they’re getting much more than their fair share already.

See my point now?

34

[quote]Kuz wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
DTLV wrote:

Anyway, public employee unions are fundamentally different from private sector unions for two main reasons. First, government does not have the profit motive that private sector employers do, so there is less downward pressure on employee compensation. Second, public employee unions are HUGE contributors to political parties and campaigns. The problem with this is that when the candidate that the union gave millions of dollars to wins (and, though they favor the Democrats, they give to both parties), at the next contract negotiation, the union is effectively sitting on BOTH sides of the table. Again, this is good for the union membership, and good for the politicians, but it’s a disaster for you, because you’re paying for it.

Unions support the Republicans? Really? I think you better check that one out. Organized labor is directly against the Republican agenda. And the AFL-CIO knows this. Watch yourself…

http://www.publicintegrity.org/partylines/overview.aspx?act=con0&linkid=4133

Actually, AFL-CIO was more supportive of Republicans than Democrats in the state of New York. I was sort of surprised myself.[/quote]

Ha yea I saw that right before you posted it. Unfortunately, its in return for big contracts and what not. Backroom political dealings. Fucking sad.

35

[quote]deanec wrote:
Is this representative of the average liberals logic? Just wondering…[/quote]

Was that a sarcastic remark in response to my sarcastic remark?

Apparently these guys are right:

"
Sarcasm is difficult to comprehend, and even more difficult to appreciate and enjoy; however, it is doubly more so when an attempt is made to convey sarcasm electronically, through instant-messages, through email, or any written online medium.
"

http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/howtobesarcastic/lessontwo.php

36

Managers and top executives are not necessarily the same thing.

37

If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and the resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor.

– Frank Lloyd Wright

Very true : My employees have a right to start a union and I have a right to fire all of them.

38

hspder,

Nobody is willing to argue that executives are making too much… because of the myth that everyone has the ability to achieve such income levels.

We all have the chance to win the lottery too…

39

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Kuz wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
DTLV wrote:

Anyway, public employee unions are fundamentally different from private sector unions for two main reasons. First, government does not have the profit motive that private sector employers do, so there is less downward pressure on employee compensation. Second, public employee unions are HUGE contributors to political parties and campaigns. The problem with this is that when the candidate that the union gave millions of dollars to wins (and, though they favor the Democrats, they give to both parties), at the next contract negotiation, the union is effectively sitting on BOTH sides of the table. Again, this is good for the union membership, and good for the politicians, but it’s a disaster for you, because you’re paying for it.

Unions support the Republicans? Really? I think you better check that one out. Organized labor is directly against the Republican agenda. And the AFL-CIO knows this. Watch yourself…

http://www.publicintegrity.org/partylines/overview.aspx?act=con0&linkid=4133

Actually, AFL-CIO was more supportive of Republicans than Democrats in the state of New York. I was sort of surprised myself.

Ha yea I saw that right before you posted it. Unfortunately, its in return for big contracts and what not. Backroom political dealings. Fucking sad.[/quote]

Well then you and I can actually agree on something politically. The whole system (at times) is sad. I wish I knew what to do to flush the mutha out.

40

[quote]PantyPeePunch wrote:
If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and the resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor.

– Frank Lloyd Wright

Very true : My employees have a right to start a union and I have a right to fire all of them.
[/quote]

Wow never heard that one before.