• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart workers demand better wages

So no such organization exists for "unskilled" labor?
A trade club for unskilled labor would be like a church for atheists.

Actually, I’m kinda wondering if “unskilled labor” is a valid description…I mean any job requires SOME level of skill…You’re better at shoveling gravel than that guy over there, you have better shoveling skill…granted the difference in output may be less significant than that between a competent vs. a brilliant computer programmer, but I’d think that someone looking for 10 gravel shovelers for a construction job might still want the 10 best gravel shovelers they could find. :2razz:

Then again maybe not…
Unskilled labor means you don't need specialized training; basically anyone who walks through the door can be taught how to do that job in a very short time.

Skilled Labor Vs. Unskilled Labor | eHow.com

Skilled labor is the portion of workers in an economy that have specific, technical industry skills relating to business and the production of goods. Engineers, welders, accountants and scientists are a few examples of skilled labor. These individuals bring specialized skill sets to the marketplace and are essential in advancing industries through developing new techniques or methods of productions.

Unskilled labor is the cheaper and less technical portion of the workforce that makes up a large part of an economy's labor market. This workforce plays the important part of performing daily production tasks that do not require technical abilities. Menial and repetitive tasks are the common workplace of unskilled labor; some unskilled labor tasks may include customer-service positions that help consumers when purchasing goods from a company.
 
A trade club for unskilled labor would be like a church for atheists.


Unskilled labor means you don't need specialized training; basically anyone who walks through the door can be taught how to do that job in a very short time.
But you can be good or bad at even unskilled labor. Work ethic comes into play there, I think, and depending on the job, mental/physical ability...

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the trade club bit, but are you saying it would not be possible to have some form of "unskilled labor" trade club?


Edit: Then again, if you have the ability to form a trade club, you have the ability to do more than unskilled labor, I suppose...:2razz:
 
But you can be good or bad at even unskilled labor. Work ethic comes into play there, I think, and depending on the job, mental/physical ability...
Sure anyone can have a good work ethic, but that's the point: anyone can have a good work ethnic. Not just anyone can be taught how to set up and maintain a collage intranet. You need to already be proficient with various computer languages, operating systems, modern hardware, etc, before you even fill out the job application.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the trade club bit, but are you saying it would not be possible to have some form of "unskilled labor" trade club?
A tradless trade-club. SkillsUSA[sup]TM[/sup] that doesn't require any skill; SkillessUSA? You have to be in a trade in order to be in a trade club. You have to practice a skill in order to be skilled-labor. There are basic safety courses out there which are not trade-specific, such as the OSHA10hr, but those aren't chartered clubs who collect dues, hold minutes and agendas, and conduct regular events.

A trade club is industry-specific. Unskilled labor is not industry specific. Every industry has unskilled labor, but unskilled labor is industryless. An unskilled worker would have to choose an industry in order to find a trade club. For these Wall-Mart workers, there may very well be retail trade-clubs out there for Wall-Mart workers to join, but that would be a *retail* trade club, not an unskilled trade club. I imagine a retail trade-club would train it's members on the art of customer service, the different inventory systems respective retail stores use, the science of price-pointing, etc. But that's all content specific to retail, and would help only unskilled laborers who are working retail, and probably wouldn't help that same worker in a non-retail unskilled job, such as a UPS box thrower.

Also, a retail trade-club would solicit members from every retail store in the aria, unlike unions who embed themselves in a specific company. A retail trade club would be made of Wall-Mart cashiers, the HR manager of Target, the cart pusher from Toy-r-Us, the small-business owner of the tiny pet store in the mall and all the tweens who work there part time after school, the Radio-Shack guy who never has a solution to your problem, and the guy from Lowe's who delivered your new dishwasher. Members of a retail club would go to that club to look for a job from among it's members who are hiring because those members (ie, a Wall-Mart HR manager who's hiring) pay the industry standard for the type of job they want to fill. There's no unusual cut in pay or expectations. A cashier is a cashier, so through a retail trade club someone looking for a cashier job can expect to be paid about the same regardless of if they're hired at PetCo, Family Thrift or Scheel's. When the member presents themselves as an applicant, their membership would be a key talking point because of the *skill* and enhanced ability at retail which is assumed through membership. Likewise the main reason to look for a job through the trade club as opposed to Monster.com is to assure the applicant reasonable pay and expectations for the work they're applying for.

When any member, employee or employer, screws up (cutting hours, or walking off a job), they lose face within the club, they lose their marketability. It will become harder for a retail store to find quality workers. It will become harder for a bad worker to find a good job.
 
Last edited:
Another thing trade-clubs are good for, is recording and validating your apprentice/juryman/master status in your trade. These are actual skill levels with requirements, such as 10,000+ verified hours and certain certifications in your trade to attain Master level. An electrician must maintain his license to practice for 2 years to become a Journeyman, or 4-5 years to become a Master. A 2-year vo-tech degree can automatically promote a beginner to Journeyman. Becoming HVAC certified, or becoming a licensed inspector, or logging a certan amount of houres with heavy equiptment can earn one a promotion as well.

These are not job promotions. This status exists throughout the industry, everywhere the club(s) who certify you are honored. These statuses translate into more money because an employer will specifically word the job add to say, for example: "
Journeyman level electrician with experience in commercial and industrial, for new projects and service work.....Reads and understands conduit drawings, schematics, electrical drawings and specifications. § Diagnoses malfunctioning systems, apparatus and components...

Journeyman Electrician Jobs, Employment | Indeed.com

When you walk in to apply, the first thing the employer will want is validation that you're a Journeyman electrician. This is where the applicant would present their member card from their trade club and give a couple references.

So how would we certify that someone is unskilled? How to we verify that the applicant indeed has no specialized training at all? A certified Master-level unskilled worker is someone who dropped out of HS and never bothered to do anything with themselves (because Master level assumes you can document 10,000+ Hrs of unskilled work...that's about 4 years working 50-hour weeks without vacation).
 
Last edited:
So if you put an item on a shelf you think that you have a right to "vote" that you get paid more than the person that invested the time and the money and the hundreds of work hours to start up a company. Do you have any idea how insane that sounds?

Except thats not how it would work, because we see in cooepratives people that have more responsiblity generally get paid more ... just not rediculously more, I mean we have tons of examples of this.

Kal'Stang said:
Actually yes it does.

No it isn't ... they pay themselves, what gives them that right is not mental labor, its control of capital.

Kal'Stang said:
It is only the best way because it provides force. But it certainly is not the right and moral way to go about it.

But you're right, you're not saying that the CEO SHOULD do something. You're whole arguement is based on the premise that the CEO HAS to do something. That the workers should have more say because they do something that a monkey can do. (stock shelves)

Of coarse it is the right and moral way to go about it ... It is right and moral to take responsiblity for yourself and your well being, and not accept being a wage slave.

I'm saying the workers should have a say.

Also having a part in the decision making would make them part of the management .... any argument you make against that is the same that monarchists would make against democracy.

Kal'Stang said:
Actually that arguement has nothing to do with democracy or monarchy or any other form political ideology. It has to do with plain simple fact and reality. There will always be someone that drives a honda and someone that drives a porsche. Not everyone can have the same thing.

And what? 50 years ago you didn't have the saem wealth disaprity you have now ... I'm not saying everyone has to be equal, I'm saying everyone should have the same say in the decisions that effect their lives.

Kal'Stang said:
Actually Capitalism is the one thing that has been around as long as man has. You see dictators come and go. You see democracy come and go. But capitalism has ALWAYS been around. You call yourself a socialist but what you don't understand is that socialism never ever works. It is a political ideaology that fails the moment even one person takes advantage of that system.

Nonsense, Capitalism HAS'NT always been around, infact socialist forms of organization existed before capitalism.

As far as socialism never working ... thats nonsense, the system that can be taking advantage of more is Capitalism, infact it happens all the time, which is why now its basically run by a couple bankers.

Kal'Stang said:
Sounds like a capitalistic idea right here folks. Thought you were against capitalism Rgacky3?

... Its not a capitalistic of socialistic idea, its just a fact on how capitalism works, I'm not for or against it.

Kal'Stang said:
No he doesn't. If he did then every paycheck that he got he would have to dole out money to help pay for those things. And he is already compensated for the labor he does. By being paid the money that he agreed to be paid the moment he got hired. If he thought that his labor was worth more than that initial agreement then maybe he shouldn't have agreed to that amount when he got hired.

Workers will never get their labors worth, because they are in the disadvantage of not holding capital.

The point is the workers will get fired, pensinos cut and so on before the CEO's compensation gets cut.

BTW, I Have a question, over the last 20 years executive compensation has risen 300% ... have CEOs gotten 300% better?

Kal'Stang said:
It has nothing to do with power. It has to do with ownership.

Semantics ... Ownership is power.

Kal'Stang said:
A democracy cannot work when running a company. Take a look at our government. The very thing that you are argueing for to run a company is done in the House and the Senate. If our government was a company it would have failed by now. People argue all the time. People have different opinions on how things should be. Things which do not need to be done is done and things which should be done are not done. THAT is democracy for you. And is why no company would ever succeed if that company was a democracy.

Except IT DOES WORK .... you have many many examples of extremely successful cooperative firms ... infact the richest region in Europe is run mainly by cooperatives ... You're just talking out of ignorance.

Kal'Stang said:
No actually he doesn't. Those items that he puts on a shelf are not his. The building is not his. The land is not his. The company is not his. He has no right to help decide anything that the company does. He has no more right to it than a guest in your house has a right to help you decide what carpet you should put in your living room.

You're assuming that capitalist property is a natural right ... it isn't ... its a social construct.

My living room is not a social construct because it does'nt affect other peoples lives.
 
Which I could agree with, but it was your breathtakingly pro union stance of "they are part of management". They advise, they make workers opinions heard on strategy, they dont run the companies. Its a nice backpedal but try to make sure you are factual next time.

They take part in the running of the companies ... having a vote on the board makes a difference ... BOTH boards, you also have different systems in different countries that have co-determination.
 
Only going to address two points of this mess.

No they dont. Of course they pay an enormous amount of taxes that builds that infrastructure. The institutions would not be present without the businesses. From the first few settlers here to today its always been business paying the majority of the bills to make the infrastructure happen. The problem is government currently misuses an enormous amount of what they take in. Cronyism is rampant at every level of government. Government has entirely too much power and it shows in the way they deal with the public.

Under Capitalism which works better than anything else we have found so far.....Keep that in mind.

Not only the infastructure, also the whole institutino of property, the whole system of private capitalist ownership and so on, the whole capital market system, the whole system of regulation making sure that people are not cheated.

Saying its always been buisiness paying the majority of the bills ... no **** ... thats like saying its the king that pays most of teh bills, because buisiness controls all the capital and resources.

Government being corrupt is a problem of buisinesses having too much power ... and in countries where you have a stronger public sector and less powerful corporations you don't have that kind of corruption, but corporatism is the natural outcome of capitalism (as Marx predicts).

Capitalism has been the best system so far ... but capitalism is riddled with self contradictions that lead to its collapse, so we have to find a better solution.
 
In the case of Hostess...yes they are responsible. They KNEW that if those workers did not get back to work then Hostess would have to liquidate. Yet they didn't let thier workers go back to work and because of that they lost thier job. So yeah, those union bosses were responsible for 18,000 employee's losing thier jobs.

I will agree that there is more job security for people with a union. Including for those that are crappy workers and should be fired. But the hassle of getting them fired is so damn onerous that it takes a lot to do it. Meanwhile that crappy worker is costing the company money.

Oh and btw, working hard is a form of job security also as they are much less likely to fire you than a crappy worker. Especially during rough times. Indeed if you are a hard worker and follow company guidelines you will never get fired.

Ok after reading about Hostess ... you're full of **** ... Hostess went through 7 CEOs in 10 years, they had missmanaged for years, loosing income, the workers ALREADY took a hit while executives were taking pay increass ... the company would have gone under with or without the strike ... You cannot seriously blame Hostess on teh unions ... when you get ever increasing pay increases for executives while running the company into the ground .... you can't blame the union for wanting to put a stop to that.

As far as the crappy worker ... the other workeres would'nt wnat a crappy worker in either ... so chances are in a democratic workplace he'd be out. However we have examples of strong union countries, in scandanavia and germany ... are those countries unproductive???? Nope ... emprical evidence always works best.

Working hard helps, but without collective power, the boss will ALWAYS put losses on the workers and take gains for himself ... being a good slave won't change that, the boss will ALWAYS pay himself the most he can and pay the workers the least he can.

This shows just how little you know of our system. Stocks are not just imaginary things. They are investments in a company. The more you have invested in a company the more you are able to have a say in what goes on in that company. If you own 51% of the shares of a company you can literally shut that company down and liquidate it. Doing this is often called a "corporate hostile takeover" because the person that was in charge gets ousted.

No they arn't other than IPOs the company doesn't see any of the money when a stock is bought. Most people buy stocks to get capital gains ... not for long term investment, shareholders actually have very little long term interest in a company, which is one major problem with capitalism.

No, I claimed that they lie like politicians. Even politicians tell the truth when it suits them to. I've also never said that the CEO of Wal-Mart never lies.

Now...no comment on anything else I said in that post?

So then its irrelevant.

What else did you say that you want me to respond to?
 
Better for whom? The union worker? Sometimes. Society, never.

How good of job security is there for the Hostess employees now that the company has been forced into receivership and is being sold off due to the failure of unions to work with the company? How much job security is there for the union employees in various industry when their jobs are outsourced because labor costs are too high and quality of product too low?

Is it better for society that job security for a steal worker causes us not to adopt lighter weight, more efficient materials for construction, such as carbon fibers, carbon nano-tubes and ceramics which requires a higher skill set than those working with steal? Is it better for society that "job security" in existing technologies stops the advancement to newer technologies?

My cousin drives for a large company. His current truck has over a million miles on it and the company wants to by newer trucks. However, his union demands that the company buy from only a union manufacturer. Is it more cost effective for the company to continue maintaining that old truck instead of buying a new one from a Union shop? The company is going to do what is most cost effective for it. From an environmental or safety standpoint, the a new truck would be better, but by forcing the company to pay higher costs for a truck built by a union, it cannot replace the older trucks at a very high rate. This may be great for the guys and gals at the union plant building the truck, but what is the cost to the rest of us because of the policy?

Yeah ... the society and the workers ... as evident by countries with storng unions vrs those with non, and when the US had storng unions with now.

As far as Hostess ... Hostess was missmanaged for years, going through 7 CEOs in 10 years, loosing profits cutting wages AND increasing executive compensation, it was gonna go out no matter what. Blaiming the UNion for that is rediculous and just Fox News nonsense.

As for as outsourcing that happened AFTER UNIONS were destroeyd in the 80s. Unions actually hold jobs at home ... againg we have tons of evidence for this ... The US destroyed its unions and then outsourcing happened, germany did not.

There is nothing about strong unions that stops technology, infact it helps it by encouraging public education and an educated workforce.

As far as your cousin ... It ends up helping society as a whole since you have higher employment, thus more aggrigate demand, meaning higher wages, its an upward pressure on wages, which in aggrigate is higher than any inflation.
 
What I am saying is that it is arrogant to demand more from an employer. You either earn more and ask for it, or move on, it is the employers business, they took the risks, including hiring the employee. If a business goes under the employee finds another job, the owner may never recover. If the employee wants to make the rules he can open a business, if he wants more money it's up to that employee to prove it, this is what modern employees seem to forget.

I can't read the minds of these Wal-Mart workers but you and others have repeatedly attributed their protests to selfishness or at the very least you're saying they just want more money they haven't earned. While I can't deny that thought may be exactly what's going through their head, a lot of protestors and a lot of unions are working to ensure that everybody gets a fair deal. To ensure that if you work hard enough, you will be able to get by so long as you are dedicated, resilient, and able. Yes, Wal-Mart hired these employees for whatever wage and yes, they agreed to it, but that doesn't mean it's fair.

I used to know a guy who came to the US from India and got a job at this Indian restaurant where they paid everybody less than minimum wage and had a dozen or so of their employees live in an apartment together. They agreed to it, so it's fair, right? They couldn't change it, though, because they were getting paid under the table (as fair as I knew) so they had no say. This is the result of employees losing their voice. They will be exploited and used to further increase the billions of dollars Wal-Mart is pulling in, so long as they cannot be heard. If I were in the Indian chap's position, I would have demanded fairness, but I wouldn't do it out of selfishness or the conquest for wealth and power. I'd do it to help every one of those poor guys stuffed into a two bedroom apartment.

These days, people are struggling just to tread water and every day they go to work and every day they get paid the same amount as the slacker kid who works the register once a week. They agreed to it, but that doesn't mean it's fair. I think you were talking about Wal-Mart's benefits being pretty standard and comparable to those offered by smaller businesses. The only reason for that is the employees and American citizens who demanded better treatment. Rosa Parks didn't ask everybody if they were cool with her sitting at the front of the bus. Kennedy didn't say "we will go to the moon within ten years if you guys feel like doing it."

Every thought of yours begins with the same premise, which is that Wal-Mart employees are already receiving a fair amount of money. But why is $8 an hour fair? What is that based on? And if you had a job for $8 an hour and weren't making ends meet, why wouldn't you demand to get what you think is fair. The whole "if you don't want the job, go find another one" is only a small step removed from "if you don't like [the current president] you can move to Canada."
 
They take part in the running of the companies ... having a vote on the board makes a difference ... BOTH boards, you also have different systems in different countries that have co-determination.

We were speaking of Germany. You dont get to put the goalposts on wheels. This isnt Daily KOS where other liberals will cover your tracks for you when you mis-state facts. The highest example of German union co-ownership is 40%. The norm is 20%. Im speaking of the actual voting board, not the advisory board. The German model of co-determination is fairly unique, especially with a two tier system. The Swedes have a single tier Co-determination system and the Euro legislative body is trying to pass legislation to that effect. The UK attempted it but were shot down because there is no two tier system, it was deemed unfeasible.

You need to quit doubling down on wrong. You do not know as much about this system as you claim to. Just let it go now and save some face and quit trying to defend a position where you were wrong and every point you expound with is also wrong.
 
I was'nt talking about the details of the co-determination system, I'm sayin that it gives workers a REAL voice in management and it does have real economic impacts ... about the details of it, its not that relevant ... unless you're arguing its inconsequencial.
 
Not only the infastructure, also the whole institutino of property, the whole system of private capitalist ownership and so on, the whole capital market system, the whole system of regulation making sure that people are not cheated.

Saying its always been buisiness paying the majority of the bills ... no **** ... thats like saying its the king that pays most of teh bills, because buisiness controls all the capital and resources.

Government being corrupt is a problem of buisinesses having too much power ... and in countries where you have a stronger public sector and less powerful corporations you don't have that kind of corruption, but corporatism is the natural outcome of capitalism (as Marx predicts).

Capitalism has been the best system so far ... but capitalism is riddled with self contradictions that lead to its collapse, so we have to find a better solution.

So you support government sponsored theft because you dont believe in property rights....good to know.

I think we are done here, come back when you can deal with reality.
 
Thta isn't wthat I said .... I never said I support government sponsered theft, government CREATES property ... I support property being treated as it is, a socail institution, not a natural right.

Also I am here in reality ... Capitalism is failing ...

We are talking about Walmart and unions ... and I think the person who thinks that walmart workers would be better off without any collective action needs to wake up to reality ... when they are surrounded by evidence and logic showing the opposite.
 
I was'nt talking about the details of the co-determination system, I'm sayin that it gives workers a REAL voice in management and it does have real economic impacts ... about the details of it, its not that relevant ... unless you're arguing its inconsequencial.

Your entire point was that companies were better in Germany because of workers having voting leverage on the boards to determine how things are done. Im saying thats not the entire cause. Cultural impacts make a difference. Quality is valued more in Germany than in the US and value is perceived as being of higher worth in the US than in Germany. US industry focuses on productivity and quality circles tend to have less impact. Thats changing, but slowly. Competition is the reason why. US manufacturers are finding that if they have good quality AND productivity they can win over the markets.

You really dont have a firm grasp on global economy and cultural influence in industry so again, you may want to quit while youre uh, break even I guess.
 
Thta isn't wthat I said .... I never said I support government sponsered theft, government CREATES property ... I support property being treated as it is, a socail institution, not a natural right.

Also I am here in reality ... Capitalism is failing ...

We are talking about Walmart and unions ... and I think the person who thinks that walmart workers would be better off without any collective action needs to wake up to reality ... when they are surrounded by evidence and logic showing the opposite.


Government doesnt create ****. Government confiscates property as taxes and generally tends to waste a lot of it and currently only effectively uses about 20% of what they take in. 70% of it is given away to others--primarily democrat constituents in one form or another or foreign aid. The last 10%? Oh well they flat out waste THAT.

Here you have fun, an Oyster farm (the last one in California) is being driven out of business with falsified data from our own government. Scientists side with Drakes Bay oyster farmer - SFGate

PS youre going to have to be talking about government theft because right now it doesnt belong to the government and to make it part of some half assed social contract you are going to have to steal it first.
 
Your entire point was that companies were better in Germany because of workers having voting leverage on the boards to determine how things are done. Im saying thats not the entire cause. Cultural impacts make a difference. Quality is valued more in Germany than in the US and value is perceived as being of higher worth in the US than in Germany. US industry focuses on productivity and quality circles tend to have less impact. Thats changing, but slowly. Competition is the reason why. US manufacturers are finding that if they have good quality AND productivity they can win over the markets.

You really dont have a firm grasp on global economy and cultural influence in industry so again, you may want to quit while youre uh, break even I guess.

putting it to Culture is extremely weak ... Also culture doesn't exist in a vaccume, its shaped by the socio-economic institutions. 50 or 60 years ago the US was the pinnicle of quality ... Did culture just change arbitrarily? Or did the US socio-economic institutions change?
 
Government doesnt create ****. Government confiscates property as taxes and generally tends to waste a lot of it and currently only effectively uses about 20% of what they take in. 70% of it is given away to others--primarily democrat constituents in one form or another or foreign aid. The last 10%? Oh well they flat out waste THAT.

Here you have fun, an Oyster farm (the last one in California) is being driven out of business with falsified data from our own government. Scientists side with Drakes Bay oyster farmer - SFGate

Governmetn doesn't create ****? Really Well me living in Norway and benefiting from companies like Statoil and DnBNor I beg to differ.

Also where are you getting these statistics about government?

Also efficiency has to be measured differently in public firms than private ... because the public must take care of negative externalities ... So for example medicare has to take those with pre-existing conditions AND without ... Statoil has to deal with enviromental issues that the public worries about and so on.
 
If socialism is so great, how come it has to be enforced through the barrel of a gun?
 
putting it to Culture is extremely weak ... Also culture doesn't exist in a vaccume, its shaped by the socio-economic institutions. 50 or 60 years ago the US was the pinnicle of quality ... Did culture just change arbitrarily? Or did the US socio-economic institutions change?

Its really hard explaining business history to someone that doesnt know a dang thing about it. Go look at the history of WW2 post Germany and Japan marketing and industry techniques that revolutionized changes.

First point: US manufacturing became too big and monolithic in nature. Product changes have been happening faster and faster--the agile companies that are able to retool easier become first movers. Changing product lines is a costly job.

Second Point: The auto industry in particular allowed unions to embed themselves into procedure that was designed to create more union jobs, it hindered productivity and quality control in a variety of areas throughout the market.

Third Point: Supply chains in Germany and Japan are smaller, allowing tighter quality control---US industries have to double and triple up on supply chains due to work stoppages for various reasons--including strikes.

Fourth Point: The US auto industry had a lot of trouble adapting to smaller vehicle manufacture. They simply didnt know how to make smaller, lighter cars---when the Japanese had been practicing it for years before American industry even got started. The US has made up ground more or less steadily but they were behind since approximately the the late 70s.

Fifth Point: Japanese marketing people were actually taking feedback on their vehicles and improving them. American vehicles were being done via push rather than pull marketing we were still in a productivity based market that wasnt making products then trying to find markets instead of the other way around.

Rebutt some of that and Ill get back to you.
 
Governmetn doesn't create ****? Really Well me living in Norway and benefiting from companies like Statoil and DnBNor I beg to differ.

Also where are you getting these statistics about government?

Also efficiency has to be measured differently in public firms than private ... because the public must take care of negative externalities ... So for example medicare has to take those with pre-existing conditions AND without ... Statoil has to deal with enviromental issues that the public worries about and so on.

US budget statistics. 2/3 of our budget is social spending.

How did government get the property? Did they take it from someone else or did they actually pay for it?
 
Its really hard explaining business history to someone that doesnt know a dang thing about it. Go look at the history of WW2 post Germany and Japan marketing and industry techniques that revolutionized changes.

First point: US manufacturing became too big and monolithic in nature. Product changes have been happening faster and faster--the agile companies that are able to retool easier become first movers. Changing product lines is a costly job.

Second Point: The auto industry in particular allowed unions to embed themselves into procedure that was designed to create more union jobs, it hindered productivity and quality control in a variety of areas throughout the market.

Third Point: Supply chains in Germany and Japan are smaller, allowing tighter quality control---US industries have to double and triple up on supply chains due to work stoppages for various reasons--including strikes.

Fourth Point: The US auto industry had a lot of trouble adapting to smaller vehicle manufacture. They simply didnt know how to make smaller, lighter cars---when the Japanese had been practicing it for years before American industry even got started. The US has made up ground more or less steadily but they were behind since approximately the the late 70s.

Fifth Point: Japanese marketing people were actually taking feedback on their vehicles and improving them. American vehicles were being done via push rather than pull marketing we were still in a productivity based market that wasnt making products then trying to find markets instead of the other way around.

Rebutt some of that and Ill get back to you.

1. Where is the evidence that German manufacturs are "more agile" ....?

2. That doesn't explain much since German auto manufacturs were extremely unionized ... also that doesn't change the fact that the auto industry was doing fine when unions were strongest.

3. Where is the evidence that supply chains are smaller? Also purchasing locally is partially German socail policy, i.e. public policy restricting companies ... not Capitalism. As far as strikes, where is the evidence that post ww2, the US had more strikes? Also remember Unions are STRONGER in Germany.

4. We were not JUST talking about the auto-industry, but that isn't culture at all, that's just management.

5. Ok ... doesn't really change my point though ... Also we were not JUST talking about the auto-industry
 
US budget statistics. 2/3 of our budget is social spending.

How did government get the property? Did they take it from someone else or did they actually pay for it?

Link to those statistics? Also social security is not social spending it doesn't take from the budget ...

The goverrnment CREATED IT, actyually no, God created it, either way, in the case of Statoil and DNBNor ... also where do capitalist property institutinos come from??? The government.

If you own a giant estate the only reason I can't go on and pick apples, is becuase of the state, there is nothing in nature that says you own that giant estate and all the apples that grow on it ... its a state institution.
 
You're speaking my mind but you word your post as though we disagree or something :confused:

I'm telling the protesters to STFU and go to their employer and negotiate....with their employer....not through a union rep.

Not much of a negotiating stance in the case of walmart, unless you just happen to be in a really strange and rare place, the negotiations are simple.

Walmart -- this is what we pay for this job

Potential employee -- your pay is too low and there are no benefits

Walmart -- then seek a job elsewhere and let one of the 18+ other people looking for a job in. Thanks for stopping by.

Pretty easy in this case because it is unskilled labor and the demand for jobs is much, much higher than the number of jobs available. Actually, I think is pretty nice of Walmart to offer above minimum wage, especially in a market where they probably wouldn't have to.
 
Chances are, if you can't go somewhere else for a better paying job then you're not worth more.
 
Back
Top Bottom