Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, Mr. Ford did not whine about minimum wages, he doubled autoworker wages.Ok? And again.....beautiful. You're proving that the free market operates flawlessly when left alone. Henry Ford was not burdened with government minimum wage, government regulations, and crushing government taxes (as I proved in the previous post) so he could do what all businesses want to do - invest in their own business and invest in their own people.
Idiotic progressive marxism sadly prevents that in today's world. So what do you do? Call for more of the idiotic policies that are creating the problems that you are whining about.
He didn't double it cash wise... Half of it was about making a quota
.
The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.
.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...-you-think/?client=ms-android-boost-us&espv=1But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage "compared with other companies"
This is special pleading; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services, as a rational choice, opportunity cost.
But trump said it wasn't their fault the corporations and politicians sent millions of good jobs overseas.Your boss didn't kill your ambition.
Your boss didn't make you fail your education.
I didn't kill your ambition.
I didn't make you fail in school.
If you're an adult working for minimum wage it is YOUR irresponsible choices that led you there.
But I do agree. Basically if you are poor maybe your parents shouldn't have had children. It's not president Kim Jung un"'s fault some north Korean couplle decided to have kids. It's not Castro's fault some stupid poor Cuban couple decided to have kids.
Poor people decide to be poor when they have kids and they are responsible for their children's shitty lives.
Henry Ford realized gains from efficiency and invented the efficiency wage. He did not whine about regulations, taxes, or wages.Ok? And again.....beautiful. You're proving that the free market operates flawlessly when left alone. Henry Ford was not burdened with government minimum wage, government regulations, and crushing government taxes (as I proved in the previous post) so he could do what all businesses want to do - invest in their own business and invest in their own people.Mr. Ford realized gains from efficiency, and competed with other capitalists in that same market, for market share.Beautiful! That's the way capitalism is supposed to work. Henry Ford made his own free decision of his own free will. He was not coerced by a government overstepping its authority.One of the reasons that Ford paid his workers so well was that he wanted them to be able to buy a car as well.
Idiotic progressive marxism sadly prevents that in today's world. So what do you do? Call for more of the idiotic policies that are creating the problems that you are whining about.
Once again you are not that fucking bright are you? To put Henry Ford up on a fucking pedestal shows how fucking stupid as you are... And ignorant of history to boot.
Now the real story:.......
So, if creating that blue collar middle class that could afford the cars wasn’t why Ford brought in his $5 a day wages, what was the reason?
Actually, it was the turnover of his staff.
At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford’s turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.
.
Yes, Mr. Ford did not whine about minimum wages, he doubled autoworker wages.Ok? And again.....beautiful. You're proving that the free market operates flawlessly when left alone. Henry Ford was not burdened with government minimum wage, government regulations, and crushing government taxes (as I proved in the previous post) so he could do what all businesses want to do - invest in their own business and invest in their own people.
Idiotic progressive marxism sadly prevents that in today's world. So what do you do? Call for more of the idiotic policies that are creating the problems that you are whining about.
He didn't double it cash wise... Half of it was about making a quota
.
The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.
.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...-you-think/?client=ms-android-boost-us&espv=1
This is special pleading;
a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services, as a rational choice, opportunity cost.But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage "compared with other companies"
I really hope they require all welfare moms and deadbeat dads get fixed and take care of their kids. And I want to hear black people claim we are trying to kill off their race by doing this. No we aren't. If you don't ask for welfare you can breed as much as you want.But trump said it wasn't their fault the corporations and politicians sent millions of good jobs overseas.Your boss didn't kill your ambition.
Your boss didn't make you fail your education.
I didn't kill your ambition.
I didn't make you fail in school.
If you're an adult working for minimum wage it is YOUR irresponsible choices that led you there.
But I do agree. Basically if you are poor maybe your parents shouldn't have had children. It's not president Kim Jung un"'s fault some north Korean couplle decided to have kids. It's not Castro's fault some stupid poor Cuban couple decided to have kids.
Poor people decide to be poor when they have kids and they are responsible for their children's shitty lives.
Absolutely. One way to slow that down or even bring it to a halt is for us to require people that accept welfare to not have anymore children. Currently, our government encourages poor people to have kids. The more kids you have, the more goodies you get. The one thing our government and liberals don't understand is if you reward failure, you will have more failure.
it is only your cognitive dissonance. Henry Ford was in the private sector; he doubled autoworker wages not minimum wages.Yes, Mr. Ford did not whine about minimum wages, he doubled autoworker wages.
He didn't double it cash wise... Half of it was about making a quota
.
The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.
.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...-you-think/?client=ms-android-boost-us&espv=1But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage "compared with other companies"
This is special pleading; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services, as a rational choice, opportunity cost.
You're comparing apples and oranges kid..
Welfare and entitlements are paid with tax dollars, the government can pretty much make the dollar amount any amount they wish..
Salaries are paid with profits, once it gets in the red.. No more jobs...
So again tell me you know about economics and not just about farytales and wishful thinking
.
An efficiency wage is for capital efficiency, not the socialism of fairness or the socialism of equality.Henry Ford realized gains from efficiency and invented the efficiency wage. He did not whine about regulations, taxes, or wages.Ok? And again.....beautiful. You're proving that the free market operates flawlessly when left alone. Henry Ford was not burdened with government minimum wage, government regulations, and crushing government taxes (as I proved in the previous post) so he could do what all businesses want to do - invest in their own business and invest in their own people.Mr. Ford realized gains from efficiency, and competed with other capitalists in that same market, for market share.Beautiful! That's the way capitalism is supposed to work. Henry Ford made his own free decision of his own free will. He was not coerced by a government overstepping its authority.
Idiotic progressive marxism sadly prevents that in today's world. So what do you do? Call for more of the idiotic policies that are creating the problems that you are whining about.
Once again you are not that fucking bright are you? To put Henry Ford up on a fucking pedestal shows how fucking stupid as you are... And ignorant of history to boot.
Now the real story:.......
So, if creating that blue collar middle class that could afford the cars wasn’t why Ford brought in his $5 a day wages, what was the reason?
Actually, it was the turnover of his staff.
At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford’s turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.
.
No Ford realized he lowered the labor cost in the long run by raising wages and reducing the turn over rate. Which it took Walmart over a 100 years to figure out.
.
It was never about giving a fair wage.
.
It is, because government benefits cost more to administer. And, some may not want the burden of having to be that social with your personal information, with our nanny-State.Yes, Mr. Ford did not whine about minimum wages, he doubled autoworker wages.
He didn't double it cash wise... Half of it was about making a quota
.
The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.
.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...-you-think/?client=ms-android-boost-us&espv=1
This is special pleading;
a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services, as a rational choice, opportunity cost.But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage "compared with other companies"
Raise the wages to 15 bucks per hour, those on social services will just work less hours to keep their income down enough to continue receiving benefits. That's no solution.
If a person is willing to do the job for the wage, then the wage is reasonable for that person. Otherwise, don't take the job.People have life circumstances that sometimes leads to minimum wage jobs. And who's supposed to do these jobs? Someone has to do it. Working at a fast food job doesn't mean you have no ambition.
A lot of people work fast food jobs to put themselves through college or to take care fo family. Some people have a sick parent or sibling.
There are a lot of reasons why someone might work a fast food job. You need to pay them a reasonable wage.
It is, because government benefits cost more to administer. And, some may not want the burden of having to be that social with your personal information, with our nanny-State.He didn't double it cash wise... Half of it was about making a quota
.
The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.
.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...-you-think/?client=ms-android-boost-us&espv=1
This is special pleading;
a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services, as a rational choice, opportunity cost.But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage "compared with other companies"
Raise the wages to 15 bucks per hour, those on social services will just work less hours to keep their income down enough to continue receiving benefits. That's no solution.
same thing goes for hiring someone. why does the right want a wall on prospective employees?If a person is willing to do the job for the wage, then the wage is reasonable for that person. Otherwise, don't take the job.People have life circumstances that sometimes leads to minimum wage jobs. And who's supposed to do these jobs? Someone has to do it. Working at a fast food job doesn't mean you have no ambition.
A lot of people work fast food jobs to put themselves through college or to take care fo family. Some people have a sick parent or sibling.
There are a lot of reasons why someone might work a fast food job. You need to pay them a reasonable wage.
means tested welfare is not as market friendly as unemployment compensation could be; maybe, a person will be more likely to stay home and take care of business for less, than it may cost society to employ them for a decent wage. in that case, not wasting an employer's time=money, on a job an employee may not really want, but needs merely for the capital, may be more beneficial.It is, because government benefits cost more to administer. And, some may not want the burden of having to be that social with your personal information, with our nanny-State.The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.
.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...-you-think/?client=ms-android-boost-us&espv=1
This is special pleading;
a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services, as a rational choice, opportunity cost.But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage "compared with other companies"
Raise the wages to 15 bucks per hour, those on social services will just work less hours to keep their income down enough to continue receiving benefits. That's no solution.
I've witnessed it first hand. Some of our customers use temporary services. When they get busy, they ask the temps if they could work more hours. Many of them refuse. Why? Because more hours means earning more money. More money means a cut in their food stamps.
I've also read articles in the past about cities or states that raised their minimum wage. Those minimum wage workers just work less hours. People who are hell bent on milking the system always find a way to continue their benefits no matter what.
Who can blame them? If you earn more money, it's like working for free because what you earn goes against your government stipend. If you bring in $1,200 a month in salary, and get $200.00 a month in food stamps, it doesn't make sense to make $1,400 a month in salary and lose the food stamps. You are no further ahead and are working more hours.
means tested welfare is not as market friendly as unemployment compensation could be; maybe, a person will be more likely to stay home and take care of business for less, than it may cost society to employ them for a decent wage. in that case, not wasting an employer's time=money, on a job an employee may not really want, but needs merely for the capital, may be more beneficial.It is, because government benefits cost more to administer. And, some may not want the burden of having to be that social with your personal information, with our nanny-State.
This is special pleading;
a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services, as a rational choice, opportunity cost.But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage "compared with other companies"
Raise the wages to 15 bucks per hour, those on social services will just work less hours to keep their income down enough to continue receiving benefits. That's no solution.
I've witnessed it first hand. Some of our customers use temporary services. When they get busy, they ask the temps if they could work more hours. Many of them refuse. Why? Because more hours means earning more money. More money means a cut in their food stamps.
I've also read articles in the past about cities or states that raised their minimum wage. Those minimum wage workers just work less hours. People who are hell bent on milking the system always find a way to continue their benefits no matter what.
Who can blame them? If you earn more money, it's like working for free because what you earn goes against your government stipend. If you bring in $1,200 a month in salary, and get $200.00 a month in food stamps, it doesn't make sense to make $1,400 a month in salary and lose the food stamps. You are no further ahead and are working more hours.
yes, we do; society determines our form of government. simply special pleading with micro-economics is not very inspiring of confidence in the sincerity of the right, since it give the impression of incompetence or a moral of badwill toward men, by omitting social costs.means tested welfare is not as market friendly as unemployment compensation could be; maybe, a person will be more likely to stay home and take care of business for less, than it may cost society to employ them for a decent wage. in that case, not wasting an employer's time=money, on a job an employee may not really want, but needs merely for the capital, may be more beneficial.It is, because government benefits cost more to administer. And, some may not want the burden of having to be that social with your personal information, with our nanny-State.This is special pleading;
a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services, as a rational choice, opportunity cost.
Raise the wages to 15 bucks per hour, those on social services will just work less hours to keep their income down enough to continue receiving benefits. That's no solution.
I've witnessed it first hand. Some of our customers use temporary services. When they get busy, they ask the temps if they could work more hours. Many of them refuse. Why? Because more hours means earning more money. More money means a cut in their food stamps.
I've also read articles in the past about cities or states that raised their minimum wage. Those minimum wage workers just work less hours. People who are hell bent on milking the system always find a way to continue their benefits no matter what.
Who can blame them? If you earn more money, it's like working for free because what you earn goes against your government stipend. If you bring in $1,200 a month in salary, and get $200.00 a month in food stamps, it doesn't make sense to make $1,400 a month in salary and lose the food stamps. You are no further ahead and are working more hours.
Society doesn't employ anybody--the private market does. What society does is pay people not to work. As Limbaugh said so many times: if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!
You people believe that people go on social programs because they have no reasonable choice. That's only true in some cases. In most cases, they figure out ways to abuse the system and get out of work at the same time.
For instance Google what Maine did with their food stamp program. They created regulations for those who are on the program with no children. You have to either be enrolled in a vocational program, work at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 20 hours a month to continue benefits. Guess what happened? Most of those people were not that hungry after all. Many of them dropped out of the program.
Do you really want anyone being able to waste your time=money, on a job they don't really want? The social costs alone are problematic.
the difference, my goode fascist, friend, is the difference between motivated and efficient labor, and unmotivated and inefficient labor.Do you really want anyone being able to waste your time=money, on a job they don't really want? The social costs alone are problematic.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't care if it's a job they really don't want, you have to support yourself and others in your family. I hate working. I wish I could quit today and stay on USMB all day long, but I have to work in order to keep a roof over my head.
There are only social costs when people don't support themselves and working people have to partially or fully support them.
the difference, my goode fascist, friend, is the difference between motivated and efficient labor, and unmotivated and inefficient labor.Do you really want anyone being able to waste your time=money, on a job they don't really want? The social costs alone are problematic.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't care if it's a job they really don't want, you have to support yourself and others in your family. I hate working. I wish I could quit today and stay on USMB all day long, but I have to work in order to keep a roof over my head.
There are only social costs when people don't support themselves and working people have to partially or fully support them.
Henry Ford understood the difference and counted on capital based morals to "win the day".
or they quit in the middle of work and you lose time=money having to get someone else. Henry Ford understood the true nature of employment at will.the difference, my goode fascist, friend, is the difference between motivated and efficient labor, and unmotivated and inefficient labor.Do you really want anyone being able to waste your time=money, on a job they don't really want? The social costs alone are problematic.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't care if it's a job they really don't want, you have to support yourself and others in your family. I hate working. I wish I could quit today and stay on USMB all day long, but I have to work in order to keep a roof over my head.
There are only social costs when people don't support themselves and working people have to partially or fully support them.
Henry Ford understood the difference and counted on capital based morals to "win the day".
If you are underperforming on your job, you get fired and have to find a new one. That's how industry handles unmotivated and inefficient employees.
or they quit in the middle of work and you lose time=money having to get someone else. Henry Ford understood the true nature of employment at will.the difference, my goode fascist, friend, is the difference between motivated and efficient labor, and unmotivated and inefficient labor.Do you really want anyone being able to waste your time=money, on a job they don't really want? The social costs alone are problematic.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't care if it's a job they really don't want, you have to support yourself and others in your family. I hate working. I wish I could quit today and stay on USMB all day long, but I have to work in order to keep a roof over my head.
There are only social costs when people don't support themselves and working people have to partially or fully support them.
Henry Ford understood the difference and counted on capital based morals to "win the day".
If you are underperforming on your job, you get fired and have to find a new one. That's how industry handles unmotivated and inefficient employees.
yes, capitalists don't mind maximizing private profits by socializing labor costs.or they quit in the middle of work and you lose time=money having to get someone else. Henry Ford understood the true nature of employment at will.the difference, my goode fascist, friend, is the difference between motivated and efficient labor, and unmotivated and inefficient labor.Do you really want anyone being able to waste your time=money, on a job they don't really want? The social costs alone are problematic.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't care if it's a job they really don't want, you have to support yourself and others in your family. I hate working. I wish I could quit today and stay on USMB all day long, but I have to work in order to keep a roof over my head.
There are only social costs when people don't support themselves and working people have to partially or fully support them.
Henry Ford understood the difference and counted on capital based morals to "win the day".
If you are underperforming on your job, you get fired and have to find a new one. That's how industry handles unmotivated and inefficient employees.
If that's what a company finds, then it's on them to change their pay scale to meet their needs. That may work well in some industries while not in others. Others find more profit in keeping wages low even if it means higher turnover.
