Why Is Labor Force Participation Falling?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 13:46:58 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Oct 3, 2014 13:18:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if the increases in productivity were PROPORTIONALLY shared, there would be no Gini-skewing.

Our wages moved too high as compared to the global economic scale. Basically the whole world has entered the modern industry age. A country with a lower living standard can compete on the global market better than the higher wage and tax enviroment of the US. As more and more formerly 3rd world countries move up the capability ladder. We become less competetive, and our living standard (through lost wages) continues to drop.

this is a global view, but i don't think it is accurate.  Canada also participates in the global economy.  here is their productivity to real wage graph:

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 13:47:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 13:35:06 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I think the fact is that union membership is steadily dropping as % of the population. The union pay scales which are a part of wage versus productivity number could not withstand the forces of the globalization of business. For one, GM has reduced wage and benefits for new workers through the union agreements to keep the company from going under.

the wages in Germany are 2x what the US auto industry paid, and they don't seem to be in an existential battle for survival.

therefore, i surmise that GM's problems had little to do with how much money they were paying their workers.

But the quality, or even percieved quality of product and it's price per worker, is what your discussing now. A Mercedes sedan is percieved as a much greater value than a similar sized Impala. I'm willing to say that it doesn't take 4 times as many workers to build it to command 4 times the price.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 13:52:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 13:46:58 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Our wages moved too high as compared to the global economic scale. Basically the whole world has entered the modern industry age. A country with a lower living standard can compete on the global market better than the higher wage and tax enviroment of the US. As more and more formerly 3rd world countries move up the capability ladder. We become less competetive, and our living standard (through lost wages) continues to drop.

this is a global view, but i don't think it is accurate.  Canada also participates in the global economy.  here is their productivity to real wage graph:

I'm not trying to be insulting to our Canadian posters, but Canada really isn't much of an exporting manufactured goods type of industry country.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 13:58:30 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Oct 3, 2014 13:47:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the wages in Germany are 2x what the US auto industry paid, and they don't seem to be in an existential battle for survival.

therefore, i surmise that GM's problems had little to do with how much money they were paying their workers.

But the quality, or even percieved quality of product and it's price per worker, is what your discussing now. A Mercedes sedan is percieved as a much greater value than a similar sized Impala. I'm willing to say that it doesn't take 4 times as many workers to build it to command 4 times the price.

agreed.  so, then the question becomes: why has GM not produced value?

i think we can both agree that this is a question that has very little to do with cost.  but even if we disagree, the perceived and real value of a product is proportional to it's cost.  in other words, if Germany can make a car that is perceived as twice the value at twice the price, there is no real competitive advantage there.  the disadvantage for GM is that they make shitty cars.  thus, the perceived value is nil, basically.  this has NOTHING to do with labor whatsoever.  if wages were zero, the cost of a vehicle would be the cost of the materials to produce it (which is considerable).  but if the value is nil, there will still be no demand.

no, i stand by my earlier point.  GM is using labor as an EXCUSE for poor value, but the truth is that their vehicles suck, and THAT is what is creating poor value. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 14:05:25 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Oct 3, 2014 13:52:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is a global view, but i don't think it is accurate.  Canada also participates in the global economy.  here is their productivity to real wage graph:

I'm not trying to be insulting to our Canadian posters, but Canada really isn't much of an exporting manufactured goods type of industry country.

actually, Canada is a TREMENDOUS exporter.  they export 3x per capita what the US does:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_per_capita

i noticed that you narrowed the argument to "manufactured goods", but i don't know how to isolate for that variable.

but for the record, i am having trouble finding graphs for other countries.  when i find them, i will post them.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 14:06:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 13:58:30 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

But the quality, or even percieved quality of product and it's price per worker, is what your discussing now. A Mercedes sedan is percieved as a much greater value than a similar sized Impala. I'm willing to say that it doesn't take 4 times as many workers to build it to command 4 times the price.

agreed.  so, then the question becomes: why has GM not produced value?

i think we can both agree that this is a question that has very little to do with cost.  but even if we disagree, the perceived and real value of a product is proportional to it's cost.  in other words, if Germany can make a car that is perceived as twice the value at twice the price, there is no real competitive advantage there.  the disadvantage for GM is that they make shitty cars.  thus, the perceived value is nil, basically.  this has NOTHING to do with labor whatsoever.  if wages were zero, the cost of a vehicle would be the cost of the materials to produce it (which is considerable).  but if the value is nil, there will still be no demand.

no, i stand by my earlier point.  GM is using labor as an EXCUSE for poor value, but the truth is that their vehicles suck, and THAT is what is creating poor value. 

Saying they suck is subjective to price difference isn't it? Will 4 Impala's driven one after another till all 4 are used up to a set standard, last longer than one MB at the same standard of dollar use longevity? With todays falling income value, it definately puts GM into the bigger part of the automotive market. How is that poor business?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 14:19:17 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Oct 3, 2014 14:06:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

agreed.  so, then the question becomes: why has GM not produced value?

i think we can both agree that this is a question that has very little to do with cost.  but even if we disagree, the perceived and real value of a product is proportional to it's cost.  in other words, if Germany can make a car that is perceived as twice the value at twice the price, there is no real competitive advantage there.  the disadvantage for GM is that they make shitty cars.  thus, the perceived value is nil, basically.  this has NOTHING to do with labor whatsoever.  if wages were zero, the cost of a vehicle would be the cost of the materials to produce it (which is considerable).  but if the value is nil, there will still be no demand.

no, i stand by my earlier point.  GM is using labor as an EXCUSE for poor value, but the truth is that their vehicles suck, and THAT is what is creating poor value. 

Saying they suck is subjective to price difference isn't it?

not if they suck badly enough.  if, for example, i know that a product i buy will break within 5 minutes of leaving the store, there is no amount low enough that they can charge me that will induce me to buy.  in GM's case, they only suck enough to create problems for them, not to completely kill them.  but AGAIN, this is not a cost restructuring problem.  if you suck, your demand will not be high enough to clear overhead no matter how low your COGS.

Will 4 Impala's driven one after another till all 4 are used up to a set standard, last longer than one MB at the same standard of dollar use longevity? With todays falling income value, it definately puts GM into the bigger part of the automotive market. How is that poor business?

it is poor business if, despite lowering costs and prices, you are STILL not perceived as having a "good value".

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 14:15:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 14:05:25 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I'm not trying to be insulting to our Canadian posters, but Canada really isn't much of an exporting manufactured goods type of industry country.

actually, Canada is a TREMENDOUS exporter.  they export 3x per capita what the US does:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_per_capita

i noticed that you narrowed the argument to "manufactured goods", but i don't know how to isolate for that variable.

but for the record, i am having trouble finding graphs for other countries.  when i find them, i will post them.

I thought that was your point, my error. To me it just points out that the smaller players will be able to do better than us. Kind of reminds me of Timkens advertising strategy when they first got started.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 14:21:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 14:19:17 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Saying they suck is subjective to price difference isn't it?

not if they suck badly enough.  if, for example, i know that a product i buy will break within 5 minutes of leaving the store, there is no amount low enough that they can charge me that will induce me to buy.  in GM's case, they only suck enough to create problems for them, not to completely kill them.  but AGAIN, this is not a cost restructuring problem.  if you suck, your demand will not be high enough to clear overhead no matter how low your COGS.

Will 4 Impala's driven one after another till all 4 are used up to a set standard, last longer than one MB at the same standard of dollar use longevity? With todays falling income value, it definitely puts GM into the bigger part of the automotive market. How is that poor business?

it is poor business if, despite lowering costs and prices, you are STILL not perceived as having a "good value".

A friend of mine owns a medium sized car rental company. He buys approximately $50,000,000 of GM product every year along with an equal amount ($) of Chrysler and Ford. Currently the GM vehicles are down to a non rent-able status at the lowest % followed by Chrysler and then Ford. These are fleet cars with not a lot of options, so maybe they are not that comparable to general public sales. The differences in numbers of out of service cars is also only a .1% or so between manufacturers. That is what I use for a scale on how much a vehicle is worth. I don't know your information source and what you regard as a troublesome vehicle. (or it sucks )

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 14:39:38 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Oct 3, 2014 14:21:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is poor business if, despite lowering costs and prices, you are STILL not perceived as having a "good value".

A friend of mine owns a medium sized car rental company. He buys approximately $50,000,000 of GM product every year along with an equal amount ($) of Chrysler and Ford. Currently the GM vehicles are down to a non rent-able status at the lowest % followed by Chrysler and then Ford. These are fleet cars with not a lot of options, so maybe they are not that comparable to general public sales. The differences in numbers of out of service cars is also only a .1% or so between manufacturers. That is what I use for a scale on how much a vehicle is worth. I don't know your information source and what you regard as a troublesome vehicle. (or it sucks )

i was just following your lead with GM, actually.  if you don't think they suck, then everything is just ducky, i guess.

for the record, we bought a Chevy Truck as a company truck new in 1995.  it has given us a bit of trouble- some weird brake stuff and regular O2 sensor trouble, but other than that it has been pretty reliable.

[justme]

Any idea how the first graph defines disposable income?

[The Captain]

Oct 3, 2014 12:51:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 12:40:56 GMT -5 The Captain said:

No Dark, you've posted too much on here for anyone to think you're stupid .  I'm willing to bet you're in the top 5-10% smarts wise.

Germany, for example, has very high minimum wages amounts.  I'd love to know exactly how they address some of the ecomonic issues I mentioned in my prior posting.

Personally, I would love to have everyone gainfully employed in a job they love where they can support their family. 

The reality is that not everyone will get to be a movie star, singer, baseball player, etc. 

red herring.  very few people are even suggesting $15/hr for FMW.  most are suggesting $10.  that is not going to make you a movie star, even in India, where wages are considerably lower.  the average Bollywood star makes $4m/picture.

Someone will have to change soiled sheets at hospitals, do the laundry at hotels, and scrub pots and pans in the kitchen.  I've done two out of the three of those jobs btw and don't minimize the value they provide, but let's be honest - not a lot of skill involved.

And, again, we all know there are people who do not want to work, and will do the absolute minimum they can get away with.  Exactly how much is that worth per hour again?

i think this is a matter for public debate, but i would vote for "that which leads to a life of dignity".

As far as the red herring - no - actually Chicago is one of the towns where the fast food workers blocked streets and picketed for $15 an hour.  I found it highly amusing given that not once in the prior week could someone give me back change if I handed them a bill and coins to round up to the next quarter after the hit the cash button.  (and BTW I don't slam all fast food employees, there are a few at a chain I go to frequently I've given my card to and told them to call me if they ever consider becoming an admin I got a starbucks barrista her first corporate job this way several years back).

It's a balancing act, but I think mandating a minimum level of pay to someone who has no true vested interest in doing less than the minimum lacks a certain amount of dignity as well.

Based on your prior postings you pay your employees well, and accordingly I have to believe you attract a higher caliber of employee.  The point I am (unsuccessfully) attempting to present is this:  Is it equitable, dignified, or "fair" to pay the same minimum to a motivated person who does a job well as compared to someone who shows up and does the minimum because they need a paycheck?  Shouldn't the business owner be able to decide that rather than have it dictated to them?

[The Captain]

Oct 3, 2014 13:18:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 13:14:11 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Ahh.  I completely missed that. 

As far as wages not keeping up with productivity - we've touched on the whole outsourcing vs. automation thing several times so I won't keep dragging in that horse. 

outsourcing, yes.  automation, no.  automation has HISTORICALLY lead to HIGHER wages, not lower (i know it is counterintuitive). 

On a Macro basis yes, wages have not kept up with productivity.  On a micro basis, there are fewer workers needed to produce the increased output so I'm not sure that is a good comparison.

i am not making a "comparison", i am stating a fact: for (150) years, wages kept up with productivity.  that is a FACT.  you seem to think there is one reason for that FACT, whereas i think there is another reason for that FACT.  but rather than you guessing mine, and me guessing you reason, why do you think this FACT is?

Of greater interest to me is how the economics shifted so that the top .1-.5% had such enormous increases in income.  Understanding how to mitigate that, and bring back more manufacturing, is what I think this country needs.

if the increases in productivity were PROPORTIONALLY shared, there would be no Gini-skewing.  eye candy:

May we explore this a bit more?  Is it possible that there is a "tipping point" as which the increases in productivity can no longer be allocated to a decent number of workers because there are significantly fewer of them needed?

The above graph only has about 30 years of a matching trend before it levels out.  Then there is a 30 year trend of flat hourly compensation.  Who is to say which trend is the "correct" one.    I know it's impossible to get a comparable but I'd LOVE to see how the above chart would look from the agrarian society of the 1800's to the mid 1900's.

In the early 80's we shifted from a production based society to an information based society.  Problem is, computers can do most of the information storage and manipulation.  

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 17:58:45 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Oct 3, 2014 12:51:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

As far as the red herring - no - actually Chicago is one of the towns where the fast food workers blocked streets and picketed for $15 an hour. 

i would call "very few" less than 10% of the public.  if you can show me than more than 10% of America supports this level of wage, then i will withdraw my red herring comment.

I found it highly amusing given that not once in the prior week could someone give me back change if I handed them a bill and coins to round up to the next quarter after the hit the cash button.  (and BTW I don't slam all fast food employees, there are a few at a chain I go to frequently I've given my card to and told them to call me if they ever consider becoming an admin I got a starbucks barrista her first corporate job this way several years back).

you are not going to get an argument out of me.  i am not advocating $15/hr.  if you don't believe me, pull up my FMW thread.

It's a balancing act, but I think mandating a minimum level of pay to someone who has no true vested interest in doing less than the minimum lacks a certain amount of dignity as well.

i don't really care how useless a person is, Cap.  honest injun.  i want a single male capable of holding down a job to stay OUT OF THE FOOD STAMP LINE.  i want them to be able to live out their humble life without any help from the state.  rents just hit a new real record this week.  it is quite expensive just to not be HOMELESS now.  so, i think the time has come to adjust to that reality.  period. 

Based on your prior postings you pay your employees well, and accordingly I have to believe you attract a higher caliber of employee.  The point I am (unsuccessfully) attempting to present is this:  Is it equitable, dignified, or "fair" to pay the same minimum to a motivated person who does a job well as compared to someone who shows up and does the minimum because they need a paycheck?  Shouldn't the business owner be able to decide that rather than have it dictated to them?

imo, no.  in order to have a business in this society, you are subjected to a lot of standards.  one of them is OSHA.  you can't have equipment that is inherently unsafe.  workplace hours is another one.  you can't MAKE someone work 100 hour weeks.  unpaid leave is the law of the land for family situations.  if your mom dies, you can take time off to bury her.  that is humane, decent, and MINIMAL in terms of standards.  i think that FMW fits in with that- and if you or any other business owner doesn't like that you actually have TWO choices- hire your own (have lots of kids- be fruitful, you quiverfull kinda guy!), or move to Indonesia, where they seem to think that paying 1/3 poverty wages is perfectly OK.  in other words, we Americans think that people are entitled to a certain income just because they are people, and that certain wages are just beneath human dignity.  if you disagree, convince 50% of the voting public otherwise in your district, state, or nation, and change it.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 18:09:51 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Oct 3, 2014 13:18:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if the increases in productivity were PROPORTIONALLY shared, there would be no Gini-skewing.  eye candy:

May we explore this a bit more?  Is it possible that there is a "tipping point" as which the increases in productivity can no longer be allocated to a decent number of workers because there are significantly fewer of them needed?

The above graph only has about 30 years of a matching trend before it levels out.  Then there is a 30 year trend of flat hourly compensation.  Who is to say which trend is the "correct" one.    I know it's impossible to get a comparable but I'd LOVE to see how the above chart would look from the agrarian society of the 1800's to the mid 1900's.

Richard Wolff has done some good work in this area.  it is a lot to pour through, but he has documented it.

In the early 80's we shifted from a production based society to an information based society.  Problem is, computers can do most of the information storage and manipulation.  

you are absolutely correct.  "stock clerk" used to be a paying job.  why?  because you had to ANALYZE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS of shoppers.  now, the cash register does not only the analysis, but the reordering based on that analysis.  the only thing a stock clerk does is to restock.  so those jobs vanished.  and that is absolutely a valid objection to my analysis.  and truthfully, i have no answer for that one.  computers have displaced the MINDS of people (which were worth something), rendering them to robotic tasks like restocking (which is not)- and that is INDEED a megatrend, and it is INDEED part of this problem.

HOWEVER- what i am asking you to do is see beyond that, from PROBLEM to IMPACT OF PROBLEM.  you have identified the problem, i believe.  however, here are the CONSEQUENCES of that problem.

when this problem started to arise in the 70's, the first change that came was that women put off childbearing and went to work.  and when they finally had children, they put them in daycare (being no longer able to stay at home and take care of them, due to the expectation of a "better life").  so, the two income family blossomed and grew in the 70's and 80's.  so, even though WAGES stagnated, because of the rise of HOUSEHOLD income, the problem was forestalled for another couple of decades. 

when women had reached saturation in the workplace in 2000, this trend stopped.  so, family incomes stalled.  in order to keep family CASH FLOW growing, people started borrowing.  the first casualty was SAVINGS, which fell from the historic norm of 8% to a record low of basically zero in the Naughties.  when that dried up, people started borrowing against HOME EQUITY, using the HELOC.  then HOME PRICES CRASHED.

this brings us to the financial crash of 2007/8/9.  and if you are wondering WHY this recovery is so slow, it is because there is NOTHING LEFT THAT PEOPLE CAN DO TO INCREASE HOUSEHOLD INCOME ANY MORE.  i think that the drop in WFP is an INDICATION that this reality has set in.  people are accepting that the 200 year ride is OVER.  they are accepting that the American Dream, that we will be better off than our parents, is DEAD.

now, personally, i don't think that it HAS to be that way.  the only thing we need to change is how we think about the problem.  but everyone is so convinced that it is over (my thread on record employment was thoroughly depressing in this respect) that it probably is.  it is too bad.  the most resourceful nation on Earth has managed to convince themselves that the land of opportunity is dead and gone.  it really isn't.  but believing something is just as good as it being true, in most cases.

[EVT1]

Well put- and sad.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 12:36:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 12:34:10 GMT -5 The Captain said:

What about the people who currently have mcjobs because they truly aren't motivated or qualified to do anything else?  

i think you are asking the wrong question.  the question (for ME) is this:

what does it take to have a thriving middle class and strong economic growth?

this piety in terms of the "worthy" and "unworthy" is really tiresome.  is Romney worthy $50M/year?  very doubtful.

Less difference between "low-level" pay and "upper management/CEO/owner" pay.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 19:23:59 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 3, 2014 12:36:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think you are asking the wrong question.  the question (for ME) is this:

what does it take to have a thriving middle class and strong economic growth?

this piety in terms of the "worthy" and "unworthy" is really tiresome.  is Romney worthy $50M/year?  very doubtful.

Less difference between "low-level" pay and "upper management/CEO/owner" pay.

the average CEO in the US made $150k in 2012.  then there is Romney.

[jkapp]

I would love to see the minimum wage raised just to see what the pro side will say when they discover they are completely f'ing wroing about its effects...my guess is they'll blame something else for it not having a positive effect (and most likely a negative one).

Making everyone else closer to minimum wage does not make the economic situation any better whatsoever. Its like saying a sinking ship can float again by raising the water level

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 20:00:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 19:23:59 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Less difference between "low-level" pay and "upper management/CEO/owner" pay.

the average CEO in the US made $150k in 2012.  then there is Romney.

Really? Why does CNN think it was 11.4 MILLION? (source)

[jkapp]

Oct 3, 2014 13:47:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 13:35:06 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I think the fact is that union membership is steadily dropping as % of the population. The union pay scales which are a part of wage versus productivity number could not withstand the forces of the globalization of business. For one, GM has reduced wage and benefits for new workers through the union agreements to keep the company from going under.

the wages in Germany are 2x what the US auto industry paid, and they don't seem to be in an existential battle for survival.

therefore, i surmise that GM's problems had little to do with how much money they were paying their workers.

Except most of that extra money is sucked up with 2x (or more) taxes and housing costs...I'll pass.

[Deleted]

They don't need to raise the minimum wage... they need to cap the difference between lowest paid employee and highest paid employee.

[jkapp]

Oct 3, 2014 14:15:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 14:05:25 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I'm not trying to be insulting to our Canadian posters, but Canada really isn't much of an exporting manufactured goods type of industry country.

actually, Canada is a TREMENDOUS exporter.  they export 3x per capita what the US does:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_per_capita

i noticed that you narrowed the argument to "manufactured goods", but i don't know how to isolate for that variable.

but for the record, i am having trouble finding graphs for other countries.  when i find them, i will post them.

But look what their biggest exports are: oil, coal, LPG - all industries our government has been making more difficult to work in due to their global warming hysteria.  Those industries have very good wages, but our govenrment is working hard to squash them...

[Opti]

Oct 3, 2014 21:56:49 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Oct 3, 2014 14:15:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

actually, Canada is a TREMENDOUS exporter.  they export 3x per capita what the US does:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_per_capita

i noticed that you narrowed the argument to "manufactured goods", but i don't know how to isolate for that variable.

but for the record, i am having trouble finding graphs for other countries.  when i find them, i will post them.

But look what their biggest exports are: oil, coal, LPG - all industries our government has been making more difficult to work in due to their global warming hysteria.  Those industries have very good wages, but our govenrment is working hard to squash them...

Climate change is an issue and the "hysteria" is kinda global.

Not sure how Canada does it with their large land mass and smaller population,

but I have no desire for the US to go back to dirty energy production and compete

with India and China for bad air quality that will shorten your life.

YMMV. These industries generally don't hire me just like construction, so personally

not a win for me. (Actually I lost hours/FT possible job because of remodel/construction

at my PT job ... but that's another whine ... another story.)

[EVT1]

Oct 3, 2014 20:00:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 19:23:59 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Less difference between "low-level" pay and "upper management/CEO/owner" pay.

the average CEO in the US made $150k in 2012.  then there is Romney.

And that is probably true for small businesses- the problem is the outliers- and no surprise it is pretty much isolated to public companies or even worse private equity.

Some people (fucking idiots IMO) think that consolidation and expansion is a good thing.  The bigger the better and all. 

And I though the USA had learned its lesson on monopolies.

Unfortunately for me- I am in my second occupation where private equity has taken over- and for the uninitiated- they expect results or they will liquidate.  Our largest competitor was bought by blackrock- and in less than a year they are going bankrupt- they quit paying vendors, the management ran for the hills, and now my company is booming because of the hole they left.

Our only saving grace- we were bought by a holding company that is in it for the long haul- but the shitty thing is they are owned by Bain Capital!  Our owner sold out for close to 100 million.  So I work for an LLC, owned by a holding company, owned by private equity.

See the problem here?  Too many layers of people wanting to cash in for nothing.  Went through this when I worked in auto dealerships- they went from family owned companies where the owners actually worked there to dealership groups that expect the same organization to now produce extra profits to sustain 'investors' and cover the costs of the goddamn fountains at the HQ in some other state populated by assholes that don't know shit about cars. 

 

[Opti]

Oct 3, 2014 23:05:38 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 3, 2014 20:00:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the average CEO in the US made $150k in 2012.  then there is Romney.

And that is probably true for small businesses- the problem is the outliers- and no surprise it is pretty much isolated to public companies or even worse private equity.

Some people (fucking idiots IMO) think that consolidation and expansion is a good thing.  The bigger the better and all. 

And I though the USA had learned its lesson on monopolies.

Unfortunately for me- I am in my second occupation where private equity has taken over- and for the uninitiated- they expect results or they will liquidate.  Our largest competitor was bought by blackrock- and in less than a year they are going bankrupt- they quit paying vendors, the management ran for the hills, and now my company is booming because of the hole they left.

Our only saving grace- we were bought by a holding company that is in it for the long haul- but the shitty thing is they are owned by Bain Capital!  Our owner sold out for close to 100 million.  So I work for an LLC, owned by a holding company, owned by private equity.

See the problem here?  Too many layers of people wanting to cash in for nothing.  Went through this when I worked in auto dealerships- they went from family owned companies where the owners actually worked there to dealership groups that expect the same organization to now produce extra profits to sustain 'investors' and cover the costs of the goddamn fountains at the HQ in some other state populated by assholes that don't know shit about cars. 

 

Interesting. My telecom expense mgmt. job disappeared during the credit crisis

as most of them were venture capital funded.

Lot of dealerships died during the credit crisis as well.

I actually would enjoy working for the right dealership, of course assuming some

cool cars will exist on-site.

[Opti]

FWIW, the average worker makes roughly $50K/year.

There are people who make between $0/year and billions per year.

Not sure how useful a mathematical average is if you really want to

understand what is going on.

[Opti]

Wish I could post part of the free Wall Street Journal I started reading.

Apparently income growth in the top earners was even more lop-sided

under Obama(2009 to 2012) than it was under Bush (2001-2007).

116% of the gains went to the top tier.

Yep I  have no idea how that works, but apparently there was a good WSJ article on 9/24,

about the recovery that does not include most people.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 21:51:02 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Oct 3, 2014 13:47:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the wages in Germany are 2x what the US auto industry paid, and they don't seem to be in an existential battle for survival.

therefore, i surmise that GM's problems had little to do with how much money they were paying their workers.

Except most of that extra money is sucked up with 2x (or more) taxes and housing costs...I'll pass.

if you add in the 19% of GDP that we pay for healthcare here, i am not sure there is much difference.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 21:47:32 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I would love to see the minimum wage raised just to see what the pro side will say when they discover they are completely f'ing wroing about its effects...my guess is they'll blame something else for it not having a positive effect (and most likely a negative one).

Making everyone else closer to minimum wage does not make the economic situation any better whatsoever. Its like saying a sinking ship can float again by raising the water level

there is an immense amount of data to support what the impact of raising the FMW is, jk.  very little of it supports the anti-position.