Hostess Defeats Unions, Americans Win, Twinkies are BACK!

[djAdvocate]

Jun 24, 2013 17:20:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 24, 2013 14:47:03 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Hostess the brand survives, but Hostess the company went POOF along with the union.

Which is something the left and most of the general public don't understand.  Multiple entities, mergers, sales, acquisitions, intellectual property, and all the different ways to slice and dice a company-- you can't stop people making a profit.  You can't lay claim to a "share" of some imaginary figure. They either have the money, or they don't.  They didn't.  So, they went into bankruptcy.

So, yes, Hostess is gone, and Twinkies are back- sans 15,000 union workers. Nice job, unions. Really worked out well for you

sometimes nothing is better than a box of rocks.

[djAdvocate]

sorry, i need to bring up my old yarn again, since some of you have not read it.

a lot of bakeries over the past two decades became "zero waste facilities" by figuring out how to rework "rejects" into the product line.  Hostess adamantly refused to do this for issues of "quality" (which, curiously, higher quality products don't seem to have).  so, rather than cutting their production costs 10% by doing this (this is typical- sometimes more, sometimes less), they stuck to their half a century old manufacturing processes.  that 10% would have MORE than paid for what the union was asking. 

they really were a bunch of do nothings.  again, if the management had all been fired, and the company had done a few smart things, i would be saying "good for them".  instead, i have nothing in me but to curse their incompetence and conservative backward looking approach.  that ANYONE would stand up for them befuddles me.

[Deleted]

 The way I read the comments posted, nobody really is defending management's failures... they're just transferring/piling all the blame for the results of the mismanagement upon the shoulders of the production workers.
 "Let them eat cake", indeed.
 The fact that people who worked in production and distribution for decades are left pensionless, while transient here-today-gone-tomorrow executives walk away with dufflebags filled with cash... is appalling to me.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2013 16:32:26 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 The way I read the comments posted, nobody really is defending management's failures... they're just transferring/piling all the blame for the results of the mismanagement upon the shoulders of the production workers.
 "Let them eat cake", indeed.
 The fact that people who worked in production and distribution for decades are left pensionless, while transient here-today-gone-tomorrow executives walk away with dufflebags filled with cash... is appalling to me.

i can identify this problem in a nutshell:

the former management of this company, which WAS replaced about 5 years ago, drove the company into the ground.  they should be drawn and quartered for it.  the NEW management should have blamed the OLD MANAGEMENT rather than the workers.  they didn't.  they blamed the workers, which they saw as the only remaining visible problem.  from their perspective, this is precisely correct.  but it is really not a FAIR way of viewing the situation that this company was in, in a historical context.

what i have tried to do in these threads is point out that there is a historical context here.  Hostess management did a fantastic job of running this company until the mid 80's.  however, when the market shifted, they failed to shift with it, or to adjust their hiring and manufacturing practices to compensate for their decision to try to hold on to a declining market.  those were all management decisions, and they were really bad ones.

the workers got f(*ked on this one.  they were not the problem.  if management had done their job, they would have been the solution.

[steff]

Jun 25, 2013 15:37:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh one other thing:

their product tastes like shit.  really.  they should have done some blind testing and product improvement, rather than sticking to a texture and flavor that only appeals to people in their 80's.  they were a fossil, and they got buried.

and one more thing: they are going to get buried again, if they think they can put that chocolate topped muffin like thing back on the shelf and make a mint at it.  they can't.  they need to use the power of BRANDING and SHELF DOMINANCE to put NEW THINGS that people (younger than 80) actually want on the shelf.

idiots.

For several of the companies that bought up the Hostess brands, it had much more to do with acquiring the plants & distribution centers in markets that their own products were not already in.  It opens the door for those companies to put their products into a new market. 

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2013 16:49:25 GMT -5 steff said:

Jun 25, 2013 15:37:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh one other thing:

their product tastes like shit.  really.  they should have done some blind testing and product improvement, rather than sticking to a texture and flavor that only appeals to people in their 80's.  they were a fossil, and they got buried.

and one more thing: they are going to get buried again, if they think they can put that chocolate topped muffin like thing back on the shelf and make a mint at it.  they can't.  they need to use the power of BRANDING and SHELF DOMINANCE to put NEW THINGS that people (younger than 80) actually want on the shelf.

idiots.

For several of the companies that bought up the Hostess brands, it had much more to do with acquiring the plants & distribution centers in markets that their own products were not already in.  It opens the door for those companies to put their products into a new market. 

this is precisely it.  the shelf space alone was worth billions.  if the vultures that came and picked the bones of Hostess clean could make a go of it, why not Hostess?

because they sucked, that's why.

[steff]

Jun 25, 2013 17:15:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 25, 2013 16:49:25 GMT -5 steff said:

For several of the companies that bought up the Hostess brands, it had much more to do with acquiring the plants & distribution centers in markets that their own products were not already in.  It opens the door for those companies to put their products into a new market. 

this is precisely it.  the shelf space alone was worth billions.  if the vultures that came and picked the bones of Hostess clean could make a go of it, why not Hostess?

because they sucked, that's why.

for hubby's employer, it was all about the plants & distribution centers & picking up the smaller independent contracts for products for ballparks, amusement parks, & restaurants.  While Wonder Bread has run its course for the most part, being able to put Nature's Own & healthier options into the market was a big incentive for the company. 

[steff]

I'll also add that when Hostess first went down, I stated here that the products WOULD be back on the shelves.  No surprise to us here.  We knew they'd be back thru different companies. 

[EVT1]

So is Palin going to start her next speech eating a twinkie?     Would not shock me at all- because as the thread title shows- what really happened is not nearly as important as what is perceived as having happened.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2013 19:32:01 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So is Palin going to start her next speech eating a twinkie?     Would not shock me at all- because as the thread title shows- what really happened is not nearly as important as what is perceived as having happened.

indeed.  half truths are the wheat and chaff of PR.

edit: without reading too deeply into all of this, i am betting that Hostess doesn't really exist any more.  just like WestingHouse Electric doesn't.  it is a BRAND.  that is all.  but who cares?  it is all crap product anyway.

[Value Buy]

Jun 25, 2013 15:37:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh one other thing:

their product tastes like shit.  really.  they should have done some blind testing and product improvement, rather than sticking to a texture and flavor that only appeals to people in their 80's.  they were a fossil, and they got buried.

and one more thing: they are going to get buried again, if they think they can put that chocolate topped muffin like thing back on the shelf and make a mint at it.  they can't.  they need to use the power of BRANDING and SHELF DOMINANCE to put NEW THINGS that people (younger than 80) actually want on the shelf.

idiots.

The group that bought the Hostess name and recipes has already announced nothing in the formulas will change. It will be the same Twinkie that the 80 year old ate.
One difference they did make, is no longer any direct store delivery. All product will be shipped to third party warehouses which will ship to the individual stores. They also stated they will actually be able to open the market to more outlets doing it this way, as, as a company they will not ship to tight geographic areas. Any warehouse who wants it can have the product and ship it to Podunk America, thus increasing market penetration. They also say retail pricing will remain at the same level it was before Hostess disappeared.
An assumption on my part is, national bakeries owned by national retail chains will pick up the items and ship with their store brand breads and cakes.
They are only starting with about eight staple items, and have announced new versions of the product, such as "crunchy" varieties, etc.

One thing that will occur, I assume, is all retailers will demand payment for shelf space for product placement.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2013 22:23:59 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jun 25, 2013 15:37:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh one other thing:

their product tastes like shit.  really.  they should have done some blind testing and product improvement, rather than sticking to a texture and flavor that only appeals to people in their 80's.  they were a fossil, and they got buried.

and one more thing: they are going to get buried again, if they think they can put that chocolate topped muffin like thing back on the shelf and make a mint at it.  they can't.  they need to use the power of BRANDING and SHELF DOMINANCE to put NEW THINGS that people (younger than 80) actually want on the shelf.

idiots.

The group that bought the Hostess name and recipes has already announced nothing in the formulas will change. It will be the same Twinkie that the 80 year old ate.

i look forward to their next bankruptcy.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

dj- you actually raise some valid points here. I would agree that the main problem facing Hostess is a waning demand for artificial sugar-loaded 'snacks'. Still, they're snacks- treats. Like a hundreds, maybe thousands of other products. What they do have- is what they're leveraging now: a unique (one of a kind, really) product and well-recognized brand. How is a Twinkie any different from any other old brand that still sells?

The Twinkie can of course be marketed, and frankly I think the biggest mistake most companies make is a lack of focus on their main product, and their specific target market. I think the biggest mistake they're making isn't the "same old Twinkie" with no changes, but it is going to end up being their misguided focus on the diet conscious consumer. Forget them. They're not your market. And here's the key point - the diet conscious consumer will NEVER, no matter what Hostess does- buy a Hostess product in large enough numbers to grow the company.

FOCUS. FOCUS. FOCUS.

Will they sell less if they do this as demand for Twinkies wanes? Yes. But that's OK. Because speaking of the 1980's - "marketshare", brand-dominance, shelf space -- all this is the strategy of yesteryear. They need to think NICHE. And shift from a store shelf strategy to online.

[jkapp]

Jun 25, 2013 15:37:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh one other thing:

their product tastes like shit.  really.  they should have done some blind testing and product improvement, rather than sticking to a texture and flavor that only appeals to people in their 80's.  they were a fossil, and they got buried.

and one more thing: they are going to get buried again, if they think they can put that chocolate topped muffin like thing back on the shelf and make a mint at it.  they can't.  they need to use the power of BRANDING and SHELF DOMINANCE to put NEW THINGS that people (younger than 80) actually want on the shelf.

idiots.

Yes, because that worked so well for Coke.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 26, 2013 8:20:35 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jun 25, 2013 15:37:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh one other thing:

their product tastes like shit.  really.  they should have done some blind testing and product improvement, rather than sticking to a texture and flavor that only appeals to people in their 80's.  they were a fossil, and they got buried.

and one more thing: they are going to get buried again, if they think they can put that chocolate topped muffin like thing back on the shelf and make a mint at it.  they can't.  they need to use the power of BRANDING and SHELF DOMINANCE to put NEW THINGS that people (younger than 80) actually want on the shelf.

idiots.

Yes, because that worked so well for Coke.

sugar water is different.  people love sugar water.  little hummingbirds we are.

but keep in mind, Coke is no dummy.  THEY bought Odwalla. 

edit: one other thing: Coke changes packaging and formulation all of the time.  they started about the time that Hostess began to fail.  i think that Coke is actually a good example of what Hostess should have done, upon a bit of reflection.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 26, 2013 7:17:44 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

dj- you actually raise some valid points here. I would agree that the main problem facing Hostess is a waning demand for artificial sugar-loaded 'snacks'. Still, they're snacks- treats. Like a hundreds, maybe thousands of other products. What they do have- is what they're leveraging now: a unique (one of a kind, really) product and well-recognized brand. How is a Twinkie any different from any other old brand that still sells?

The Twinkie can of course be marketed, and frankly I think the biggest mistake most companies make is a lack of focus on their main product, and their specific target market. I think the biggest mistake they're making isn't the "same old Twinkie" with no changes, but it is going to end up being their misguided focus on the diet conscious consumer. Forget them. They're not your market. And here's the key point - the diet conscious consumer will NEVER, no matter what Hostess does- buy a Hostess product in large enough numbers to grow the company.

FOCUS. FOCUS. FOCUS.

Will they sell less if they do this as demand for Twinkies wanes? Yes. But that's OK. Because speaking of the 1980's - "marketshare", brand-dominance, shelf space -- all this is the strategy of yesteryear. They need to think NICHE. And shift from a store shelf strategy to online.

McKelhenny (sic) is a good example of what branding can lead you to, if you just use some common sense.  they have diversified that product (Tabasco) by offering green sauce, and a lot of different formulations.  it doesn't hurt the Marquis Brand one bit.  people still buy the red sauce.  but it has brought in a whole bunch of new customers that like other flavors.  Hostess was dumb, and they paid for it.  period.  there is just no other way of viewing it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 26, 2013 10:57:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 26, 2013 7:17:44 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

dj- you actually raise some valid points here. I would agree that the main problem facing Hostess is a waning demand for artificial sugar-loaded 'snacks'. Still, they're snacks- treats. Like a hundreds, maybe thousands of other products. What they do have- is what they're leveraging now: a unique (one of a kind, really) product and well-recognized brand. How is a Twinkie any different from any other old brand that still sells?

The Twinkie can of course be marketed, and frankly I think the biggest mistake most companies make is a lack of focus on their main product, and their specific target market. I think the biggest mistake they're making isn't the "same old Twinkie" with no changes, but it is going to end up being their misguided focus on the diet conscious consumer. Forget them. They're not your market. And here's the key point - the diet conscious consumer will NEVER, no matter what Hostess does- buy a Hostess product in large enough numbers to grow the company.

FOCUS. FOCUS. FOCUS.

Will they sell less if they do this as demand for Twinkies wanes? Yes. But that's OK. Because speaking of the 1980's - "marketshare", brand-dominance, shelf space -- all this is the strategy of yesteryear. They need to think NICHE. And shift from a store shelf strategy to online.

McKelhenny (sic) is a good example of what branding can lead you to, if you just use some common sense.  they have diversified that product (Tabasco) by offering green sauce, and a lot of different formulations.  it doesn't hurt the Marquis Brand one bit.  people still buy the red sauce.  but it has brought in a whole bunch of new customers that like other flavors.  Hostess was dumb, and they paid for it.  period.  there is just no other way of viewing it.

Apples, and Oranges dj.  They're still selling to a market that eats hot sauce.  They're not trying to "diversify" to gain bland food lovers.  What I'm trying to say is that Hostess needs to understand that there are people that eat Twinkies, and people that don't.  They don't need to bother with a Hostess "diet conscious" brand.  Would it make sense for them to make investments in other quality brands, thus diversifying? Sure.  But they should do it the way the tobacco companies did.  No Marlboro Mac-n-Cheese.  It's still Kraft.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 26, 2013 13:54:01 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 26, 2013 10:57:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

McKelhenny (sic) is a good example of what branding can lead you to, if you just use some common sense.  they have diversified that product (Tabasco) by offering green sauce, and a lot of different formulations.  it doesn't hurt the Marquis Brand one bit.  people still buy the red sauce.  but it has brought in a whole bunch of new customers that like other flavors.  Hostess was dumb, and they paid for it.  period.  there is just no other way of viewing it.

Apples, and Oranges dj.  They're still selling to a market that eats hot sauce.  They're not trying to "diversify" to gain bland food lovers.  What I'm trying to say is that Hostess needs to understand that there are people that eat Twinkies, and people that don't.  They don't need to bother with a Hostess "diet conscious" brand.  Would it make sense for them to make investments in other quality brands, thus diversifying? Sure.  But they should do it the way the tobacco companies did.  No Marlboro Mac-n-Cheese.  It's still Kraft.

yeah.  a company like Nestle and Unilever that make BOTH pet food AND snacks is something to behold.

[frankq]

Funny how the owners of the Hostess brands had buyers/bidders lined up before they announced that talks with employees weren't getting anywhere. Also interesting is the fact that hostess was deducting employee pension contributions from their checks, but they weren't finding their way into the retirement fund.....yeah....those bastard workers. The reason workers took the stand they did is because they had given so much that they were not making much more than wages paid to entry level workers at other companies. They didn't have much to lose according to interviews I've seen.

Americans win? Win what? The right to work for shit wages and no benefits? Congrats......soon we'll be the most powerful Third World Nation on the planet. But as long as some people can still get Twinkees for 99 cents to go along with their $5 Starbucks coffee in the morning it's all good......

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 26, 2013 17:37:24 GMT -5 frankq said:

Funny how the owners of the Hostess brands had buyers/bidders lined up before they announced that talks with employees weren't getting anywhere. Also interesting is the fact that hostess was deducting employee pension contributions from their checks, but they weren't finding their way into the retirement fund.....yeah....those bastard workers. The reason workers took the stand they did is because they had given so much that they were not making much more than wages paid to entry level workers at other companies. They didn't have much to lose according to interviews I've seen.

Americans win? Win what? The right to work for shit wages and no benefits? Congrats......soon we'll be the most powerful Third World Nation on the planet. But as long as some people can still get Twinkees for 99 cents to go along with their $5 Starbucks coffee in the morning it's all good......

Can you back that up?

American workers enjoyed high market wages after WWII when the world was a pile of rubble, and American had the manufacturing to meet the demand of both a post-war America ready to party, and a post war world ready to rebuild.  The trouble is that since that time, our politicians have done everything they can to prevent American workers from feeling the slightest changes in the true market rates for their labor.  The result has been that rather than experience a slow, manageable change over decades, American workers are faced with a sudden, abrupt collapse in their wages to reflect the equalization of wages around the world.  I'm not sure why this isn't patently obvious- workers in India and China will see their wages climb; American's wages will continue to fall.  The price of labor- especially given technological, and infrastructure development- will equalize.  

In short- American labor has enjoyed high wages for low productivity about as long as it can be sustained.  It's over.  It's been over for some time.  

[billisonboard]

Jun 27, 2013 9:32:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...

American workers enjoyed high market wages after WWII when the world was a pile of rubble, and American had the manufacturing to meet the demand of both a post-war America ready to party, and a post war world ready to rebuild.  The trouble is that since that time, our politicians have done everything they can to prevent American workers from feeling the slightest changes in the true market rates for their labor.  The result has been that rather than experience a slow, manageable change over decades, American workers are faced with a sudden, abrupt collapse in their wages to reflect the equalization of wages around the world.  I'm not sure why this isn't patently obvious- workers in India and China will see their wages climb; American's wages will continue to fall.  The price of labor- especially given technological, and infrastructure development- will equalize.  

In short- American labor has enjoyed high wages for low productivity about as long as it can be sustained.  It's over.  It's been over for some time.  

Which is why we will become a "Third World" nation. Nothing what ever to do with the current Administration.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2013 9:32:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 26, 2013 17:37:24 GMT -5 frankq said:

Funny how the owners of the Hostess brands had buyers/bidders lined up before they announced that talks with employees weren't getting anywhere. Also interesting is the fact that hostess was deducting employee pension contributions from their checks, but they weren't finding their way into the retirement fund.....yeah....those bastard workers. The reason workers took the stand they did is because they had given so much that they were not making much more than wages paid to entry level workers at other companies. They didn't have much to lose according to interviews I've seen.

Americans win? Win what? The right to work for shit wages and no benefits? Congrats......soon we'll be the most powerful Third World Nation on the planet. But as long as some people can still get Twinkees for 99 cents to go along with their $5 Starbucks coffee in the morning it's all good......

Can you back that up?

American workers enjoyed high market wages after WWII when the world was a pile of rubble, and American had the manufacturing to meet the demand of both a post-war America ready to party, and a post war world ready to rebuild.  The trouble is that since that time, our politicians have done everything they can to prevent American workers from feeling the slightest changes in the true market rates for their labor.  The result has been that rather than experience a slow, manageable change over decades, American workers are faced with a sudden, abrupt collapse in their wages to reflect the equalization of wages around the world.  I'm not sure why this isn't patently obvious- workers in India and China will see their wages climb; American's wages will continue to fall.  The price of labor- especially given technological, and infrastructure development- will equalize.  

In short- American labor has enjoyed high wages for low productivity about as long as it can be sustained.  It's over.  It's been over for some time.  

that is not what Richard Wolff thinks.

what Wolff points out is that wages were on a parallel path with productivity until the 70's.  since then, wages have been flat, and productivity has continued to rise, and management and shareholders have pocketed the difference.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 28, 2013 9:13:24 GMT -5 @patstab said:

Yes, everything I read also says productivity is out of sight while wages continue to fall.

But hey for Paul its all about kicking the American worker and giving it all to management, we see where that is getting us.

Workers 0, management billions or I should say ex management billions, take it from Romney you make
more money by breaking up and selling a company then by keeping it going.

I'm not much for paying management either.  Paying the owners, investors, and those who take the risks- yes, I'm for them getting the reward.  Employees are a line-item expense and a necessary evil.  The ideal business would have ALL expenses- including labor- as close to $0 as possible.  It's pretty simple- there's no nobility in a business plan that maximizes expenses.

And gross productivity is on the rise, but that isn't automatically attributable to labor.  Wages are flat / falling, but the nominal wage doesn't give the full picture.  To take an honest look at wages, you have to ask yourself what wages can purchase?

Between 1870 and 1889, wages for non-farm labor decreased from $1.57 per day to $1.39 per day, a decrease of 10.2 percent. During the same period, the Consumer Price Index decreased 28.9 percent. Even though wages for unskilled labor fell by more than ten percent over twenty years, prices fell by nearly three times as much, that is, a dollar bought a lot more.

And that doesn't take into account technological improvements in our lives over time.

Further, there was much more available: Canned goods became widely available in the 1880s, which provided a much more varied diet, such as fruits and vegetables that were not in season; refrigerated railroad cars made it possible for urban residents to eat fresh meat, grapes, and strawberries more frequently; improvements in the sewing machine enabled manufacturers to mass produce clothing at low prices; department stores offered consumers wide selections in clothing, household goods, and more. In short, the unskilled worker’s life was immensely better in 1889 than it had been in 1870. In a free market, this will always be the case.

Link: capitalismmagazine.com/2013/03/the-fallacy-of-living-wage-2/

[jkapp]

Jun 27, 2013 11:51:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2013 9:32:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Can you back that up?

American workers enjoyed high market wages after WWII when the world was a pile of rubble, and American had the manufacturing to meet the demand of both a post-war America ready to party, and a post war world ready to rebuild.  The trouble is that since that time, our politicians have done everything they can to prevent American workers from feeling the slightest changes in the true market rates for their labor.  The result has been that rather than experience a slow, manageable change over decades, American workers are faced with a sudden, abrupt collapse in their wages to reflect the equalization of wages around the world.  I'm not sure why this isn't patently obvious- workers in India and China will see their wages climb; American's wages will continue to fall.  The price of labor- especially given technological, and infrastructure development- will equalize.  

In short- American labor has enjoyed high wages for low productivity about as long as it can be sustained.  It's over.  It's been over for some time.  

that is not what Richard Wolff thinks.

what Wolff points out is that wages were on a parallel path with productivity until the 70's.  since then, wages have been flat, and productivity has continued to rise, and management and shareholders have pocketed the difference.

Which makes sense...once industries linked computerization with automation, there wasn't even a need for someone to keep pushing a buttons anymore 

Because of this we can make a lot more with a lot less labor...and the labor that's left are fewer highly skilled IT personell.  The only manual labor left in most industries is mostly menial work which pays less.  The higher paid manual labor has been mostly replaced at this point...

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2013 9:49:30 GMT -5 jkapp said:

...

Because of this we can make a lot more with a lot less labor...and the labor that's left are fewer highly skilled IT personell.  The only manual labor left in most industries is mostly menial work which pays less.  The higher paid manual labor has been mostly replaced at this point...

Thus creating the problem of who will have the means to procure the "more" that is made if fewer people are involved in its production.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 28, 2013 9:49:30 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jun 27, 2013 11:51:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is not what Richard Wolff thinks.

what Wolff points out is that wages were on a parallel path with productivity until the 70's.  since then, wages have been flat, and productivity has continued to rise, and management and shareholders have pocketed the difference.

Which makes sense...once industries linked computerization with automation, there wasn't even a need for someone to keep pushing a buttons anymore 

that is part of it.  the other part is things like computerized stocking.  that did amazing things for grocery stores.  now, stuff is scanned, and when inventory falls below "X", things are reordered automatically.  goodbye store room dept.

Because of this we can make a lot more with a lot less labor...and the labor that's left are fewer highly skilled IT personell (sic).  The only manual labor left in most industries is mostly menial work which pays less.  The higher paid manual labor has been mostly replaced at this point...

all true.  however, it doesn't really tell the whole story.  although it tells enough of it that the rest can probably be guessed @.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 28, 2013 10:42:12 GMT -5 @patstab said:

And the citizens of this country are becoming the poorer for it.

I've never seen so many people without teeth or looking poor.  All my growing up years you never
saw the toothless thing.  Dental care is so expensive now its beyond many people with the lower wages and no insurance.  So sad.

which brings us full circle back to Twinkies. 

[djAdvocate]

Jun 28, 2013 12:25:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2013 9:49:30 GMT -5 jkapp said:

...

Because of this we can make a lot more with a lot less labor...and the labor that's left are fewer highly skilled IT personell.  The only manual labor left in most industries is mostly menial work which pays less.  The higher paid manual labor has been mostly replaced at this point...

Thus creating the problem of who will have the means to procure the "more" that is made if fewer people are involved in its production.

absolutely.  it also fails to resolve the fact that productivity is always done per capita (per "man hour", if you prefer).  what i am saying is that the same "workers", doing more in the same amount of time, are paid the same or less (in constant dollars) than they were a generation ago.  this is a break from a pattern than went from 1820-1970.  five generations of Americans saw wages that rose with their productivity.  since that time, the curve for $/unit of product has continued to rise for management, but not for labor.  and the result is that the middle class is stagnating, and going into debt.

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2013 19:29:47 GMT -5 @patstab said:

So how can this be resolved?

The economy of the United States does not operate in a vacuum. It is necessary to look at the world economy to understand what has changed. Significant percentages of the real "middle class" have moved overseas. The United States has used debt, public and private, to artificially prop up a "middle class" in this country. If by "resolved" you mean a return to the state that the US economy was in following WWII, it can't be "resolved".

[Value Buy]

Jun 28, 2013 19:57:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2013 19:29:47 GMT -5 @patstab said:

So how can this be resolved?

The economy of the United States does not operate in a vacuum. It is necessary to look at the world economy to understand what has changed. Significant percentages of the real "middle class" have moved overseas. The United States has used debt, public and private, to artificially prop up a "middle class" in this country. If by "resolved" you mean a return to the state that the US economy was in following WWII, it can't be "resolved".

Funny coincidence.
The owner of the business in China that was held captive this week-upon his release and return stateside he told CNBC today, that China is facing rising labor cost of hourly workers and a lack of a skilled workers, and it is now cheaper to move his business to other poorer countries and find a cheaper wage rate.
 I know some companies are actually returning production partially back the USA because costs in China are no longer, "dirt cheap" and between labor and transportation costs, it behooves them to produce it here.