Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Beltway Insiders, while you make pretty speeches, I'm being cut to shreds (156 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, "stole" isn't the best word choice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigOkie, No one gets out alive

    The working class did consent to the wages they were being paid, so it's hard to say wage increases were stolen.

    Here's a better way of looking at it. A company hires you to perform a certain task that makes the company money. While it is true that the company won't pay you more than the profit it makes from your actions, this is just a threshold that needs to be met. It says nothing about how much you would/should be paid.

    What determines your wage is the supply and demand of your type of labor. When labor is oversupplied (as it is now) wages stagnate. When labor is undersupplied, wages rise towards the break-even threshold described above. Our problem is that we're a growing country, and many types of labor are oversupplied - particularly in areas where foreign countries have recently entered the supply pool.

    So what's the solution, aside from getting desired and profitable job skills that are in short supply? There's not a good one.

    Try looking at things another way.

    by atheistben on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 04:05:50 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  what a bullshit analysis (18+ / 0-)

      perfect example:  my wife, a nurse, lost her job because her boss hated her.  spent 5 months unemployed, all the hospitals in town were either too small to higher new staff because of declining revenues or said they were not hiring.  Then, after 5 months, we took a road trip from FL to NC to visit her cousin and get a break and what do you think we saw?  the two largest hospitals in the area advertising their need for nurses in FL and offering a 10k signon bonus plus paid moving expenses.

      additionally, the hospital where my wife worked at remodeled their hospitals (still with a literally infected core) and fired a lot of the support staff like secretaries, and replaced them with volunteers.  

      right now labor is "oversupplied" because sitting on a few trillion in cash and hiring over seas is deemed to be better.  

      time and again you have posted these bullshit, naive libertarian memes - I know their bullshit, I spent years studying and believing them until disaster visited my door and forced me to rethink my world view.

      •  Goldman Sachs (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Siri, kurt

        will be operating out of China now.

         They won't be encumbered by those pesky laws.

        ~a little change goes a long way~

        by missliberties on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:32:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What is that an example of? (0+ / 0-)

        Here's something though...

        right now labor is "oversupplied" because sitting on a few trillion in cash and hiring over seas is deemed to be better.

        Companies will hire people if they can make money from them. They're not sitting on cash because it's really soft and comfy. They're sitting on cash because they think that hiring people is a losing investment. And they're probably right.

        Try looking at things another way.

        by atheistben on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:44:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  'Nuff Said. (0+ / 0-)
          They're sitting on cash because they think that hiring people is a losing investment. And they're probably right.

          Emphasis, of course, mine.  Sometimes I wish words like these could be branded on a person, doomed to haunt them the rest of their lives ...

          •  So explain what is so wrong with that statement (0+ / 0-)

            Because I'd honestly like to know. Do you think that companies should be forced to hire people at salaries higher than the value of the work the person produces? Or do you just doubt that these hires would actually result in losses for the company?

            Try looking at things another way.

            by atheistben on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:00:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  your point of view ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kurt

              is what is warped.  

              For you to be so closed off into actual corporate practices is quiet interesting.  Corporations all over this country have fired many of their staff, forced the remaining staff to do the jobs of 2-3 people, cut back on pay and benefits, and refused to hire new staff.  All the while making record profits.  Not every corporation is making record profits, but many are.  These profits are either being sat on, used to buy political influence, or used to hire overseas.  

              Do you think that companies should be forced to hire people at salaries higher than the value of the work the person produces?

              Why are you asking this question out of the blue?  I've never taken a stand that corporations should be forced to higher anyone.

              Or do you just doubt that these hires would actually result in losses for the company?

              Depends on the company, but I do know that corporate profits have been record breaking for a couple of years, while the economy still has not improved, and for many people is getting worse.  Companies need to hire so that people can spend, and they need to pay them a wage that allows them to actually buy stuff.  It has to start with corporations hiring because they are the ones siting on mountains of money.

              •  Well, first off (0+ / 0-)
                For you to be so closed off into actual corporate practices is quiet interesting.

                I'm an MBA student at a top school and I work full time. I talk and work with executives of companies all the time. Don't give me that shit.

                I was asking the questions to try to understand where you were coming from and what your argument was. I see a practical inconsistency between these two statements of yours:

                I've never taken a stand that corporations should be forced to higher anyone.

                Companies need to hire so that people can spend, and they need to pay them a wage that allows them to actually buy stuff.  It has to start with corporations hiring because they are the ones siting on mountains of money.

                So, if you don't want to force companies to hire, what do you propose we do?

                Try looking at things another way.

                by atheistben on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:32:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  that explains a lot actually (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  atheistben, kurt
                  I'm an MBA student at a top school and I work full time. I talk and work with executives of companies all the time.

                  it really does.

                  IF your so smart, then you should be able to understand the distinction between forced to hire and should hire.  One is coercive and one is not.  What I propose we do is to close tax loopholes, tax havens, and the incentive for money to sit and accumulate.  Or, to put it in another way, provide for an incentive to have the money move around the economy to the benefit of all.  Having trillions in money laying around benefits no one.  We have had periods where tax policy was used to incentivize companies to hire, pay good benefits, expand and reinvest in our society.  The only draw back was America had to go through the greatest period of shared prosperity in recorded history.

                  •  Yeah, I agree (0+ / 0-)

                    Well, to some extent. We definitely need government policy to incentivize hiring.

                    Closing most corporate tax loopholes/havens will mean that companies will have to pay more in taxes, resulting in less money for them to hire people. Granted, the government will get the money and could use it hire people to rebuild infrastructure, but they'll probably just use it for stupid tax cuts for the wealthy. So that's probably a non-starter until you reduce the amount of influence corporations and money in general have over our politics.

                    Our government is doing what it can with incentivizing hiring considering the situation. Low interest rates mean it's more attractive to hire, so we're keeping them low (so sitting money doesn't do much accumulating). We're doing payroll tax reductions so the effective costs of hiring are lower than they otherwise would have been. We're offering other incentives. I just don't see much more that our government can realistically achieve.

                    I think the fundamental problem with our economy is that we've optimized our production so quickly to levels where vast numbers of people aren't needed in the current economic context like they once were. What we need to do is find a real use for them in the real economy. That's our only realistic ticket out of this mess. If you can find someone who can figure it out, I can find you a new billionaire.

                    Try looking at things another way.

                    by atheistben on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:24:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I absolutely agree with this! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      atheistben
                      I think the fundamental problem with our economy is that we've optimized our production so quickly to levels where vast numbers of people aren't needed in the current economic context like they once were. What we need to do is find a real use for them in the real economy. That's our only realistic ticket out of this mess. If you can find someone who can figure it out, I can find you a new billionaire.

                      Our politics needs to catch up with our technology.

                    •  Money spent on labor is tax deductible. (0+ / 0-)

                      As are most capital investments.  Businesses are generally only taxed on net profits, rather than on total sales.

                      Greater corporate taxes certainly affect the risk vs. reward formula, where businesses choose to expand, and how they choose to spend their money, but they don't directly affect how much money a company has to spend hire people, to the extent of my knowledge.

    •  5 billion less people (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CanisMaximus, atheistben

      Is, unfortunately, the solution to a lot of problems.

      I think most of the madness is some form of realization of this fact, in one way or another.

      The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. - Pangolin@kunstler.com

      by No one gets out alive on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 05:43:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (5+ / 0-)

      Consent? You think so?

      We "consented" to a $10k pay cut to keep the job that's tied to our medical insurance, then we "consented" to another 25% cut just for the fun of it while the deductible on that insurance jumped by $5k/year.

      "Not struggling against your assailant because if you do it will be worse," does not equal consent.

      Fire Rick Snyder Weathering Michigan's recessions since the '70s.

      by jennifree2bme on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 03:33:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No company is forcing you to remain there (0+ / 0-)

        There is no use of force.

        It is consent. Yeah, it may suck that the pay cuts are still the best you can do. I understand that really sucks. But it is consent.

        Try looking at things another way.

        by atheistben on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:39:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site