- This topic has 195 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 25, 2011 at 10:56 AM #725395August 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM #724205
CoronitaParticipantWell, I’ll just go to costco and stock up on the supersized portions for a nuclear winter….
🙂
August 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM #724295CoronitaParticipantWell, I’ll just go to costco and stock up on the supersized portions for a nuclear winter….
🙂
August 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM #724887CoronitaParticipantWell, I’ll just go to costco and stock up on the supersized portions for a nuclear winter….
🙂
August 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM #725043CoronitaParticipantWell, I’ll just go to costco and stock up on the supersized portions for a nuclear winter….
🙂
August 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM #725410CoronitaParticipantWell, I’ll just go to costco and stock up on the supersized portions for a nuclear winter….
🙂
August 25, 2011 at 1:12 PM #724273SOCALAPPRAISER
ParticipantCA Renter,
See….. the start of compromise – something that seems non-existent in DC today.
In the end I’m not a big business corporate titan and believe Henry Ford’s theory that the worker being able to eventually afford the product would be / is good for business.
Maybe the analogy is poor but I’m not too sure that someone who installs a tire on an assembly line (i know they’re a dieing breed here in the U.S.) should be able to house, feed, educate, et al. a family of four on those skills. Should they be able to eventually afford the car they are helping make – probably so.
“The world needs ditchdiggers too” is a well-known phrase! The problem we are encountering is that the ditchdiggers in a lot of fields have been automated out or their price undercut by competition.
Back to the grocery clerks, stockers, butchers, etc. The industry has shifted – forever. There is no going back.
August 25, 2011 at 1:12 PM #724363ParticipantCA Renter,
See….. the start of compromise – something that seems non-existent in DC today.
In the end I’m not a big business corporate titan and believe Henry Ford’s theory that the worker being able to eventually afford the product would be / is good for business.
Maybe the analogy is poor but I’m not too sure that someone who installs a tire on an assembly line (i know they’re a dieing breed here in the U.S.) should be able to house, feed, educate, et al. a family of four on those skills. Should they be able to eventually afford the car they are helping make – probably so.
“The world needs ditchdiggers too” is a well-known phrase! The problem we are encountering is that the ditchdiggers in a lot of fields have been automated out or their price undercut by competition.
Back to the grocery clerks, stockers, butchers, etc. The industry has shifted – forever. There is no going back.
August 25, 2011 at 1:12 PM #724957ParticipantCA Renter,
See….. the start of compromise – something that seems non-existent in DC today.
In the end I’m not a big business corporate titan and believe Henry Ford’s theory that the worker being able to eventually afford the product would be / is good for business.
Maybe the analogy is poor but I’m not too sure that someone who installs a tire on an assembly line (i know they’re a dieing breed here in the U.S.) should be able to house, feed, educate, et al. a family of four on those skills. Should they be able to eventually afford the car they are helping make – probably so.
“The world needs ditchdiggers too” is a well-known phrase! The problem we are encountering is that the ditchdiggers in a lot of fields have been automated out or their price undercut by competition.
Back to the grocery clerks, stockers, butchers, etc. The industry has shifted – forever. There is no going back.
August 25, 2011 at 1:12 PM #725111ParticipantCA Renter,
See….. the start of compromise – something that seems non-existent in DC today.
In the end I’m not a big business corporate titan and believe Henry Ford’s theory that the worker being able to eventually afford the product would be / is good for business.
Maybe the analogy is poor but I’m not too sure that someone who installs a tire on an assembly line (i know they’re a dieing breed here in the U.S.) should be able to house, feed, educate, et al. a family of four on those skills. Should they be able to eventually afford the car they are helping make – probably so.
“The world needs ditchdiggers too” is a well-known phrase! The problem we are encountering is that the ditchdiggers in a lot of fields have been automated out or their price undercut by competition.
Back to the grocery clerks, stockers, butchers, etc. The industry has shifted – forever. There is no going back.
August 25, 2011 at 1:12 PM #725478ParticipantCA Renter,
See….. the start of compromise – something that seems non-existent in DC today.
In the end I’m not a big business corporate titan and believe Henry Ford’s theory that the worker being able to eventually afford the product would be / is good for business.
Maybe the analogy is poor but I’m not too sure that someone who installs a tire on an assembly line (i know they’re a dieing breed here in the U.S.) should be able to house, feed, educate, et al. a family of four on those skills. Should they be able to eventually afford the car they are helping make – probably so.
“The world needs ditchdiggers too” is a well-known phrase! The problem we are encountering is that the ditchdiggers in a lot of fields have been automated out or their price undercut by competition.
Back to the grocery clerks, stockers, butchers, etc. The industry has shifted – forever. There is no going back.
August 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM #724442CA renter
Participant[quote=EconProf]As big coupon-clipping comparison shoppers, my wife and I have learned to largely ignor the unionized chains like Von’s, Ralphs, and Albertson’s, and gravitated toward the Trader Joe’s, Fresh & Easy’s, and WalMart. The price differences are huge.
Again, I’d put the unionized stores into the same category as the UAW-dominated automakers compared to the nonunionized foreign-owned US auto plants over recent decades. We all know how that worked out for the shrunken UAW and their shrunken companies, and to the benefit of the non-unionized companies, the states they located in, and the consumer. Union work rules, pay scales, fringe benefits, and seniority rules are a burden on the employer that must be passed on to the consumer (or taxpayer, in the case of public employees).
Accordingly, consumers will vote with their feet and we should see a continuation of the shift toward nonunion stores. Consumer sovereignty still rules, thankfully.[/quote]But did consumers benefit from the non-union labor? Last I checked, Toyotas and Hondas were *more* expensive than the UAW-made cars.
One also has to take into consideration the fact that the wages of those consumers are also affected by the lower wages of the non-union shops, which decreases their purchasing power. This largely negates (I believe that, over time, it more than offsets) any benefits of lower prices.
IMHO, the non-union *companies* are the ones who benefit from the lack of unions, not consumers, and not employees. Now, some might argue that (the failed theory of) trickle-down economics will make this money somehow rain down upon the masses; but it’s been made painfully clear over the past 30 years that this is not how it works in real life.
August 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM #724532Participant[quote=EconProf]As big coupon-clipping comparison shoppers, my wife and I have learned to largely ignor the unionized chains like Von’s, Ralphs, and Albertson’s, and gravitated toward the Trader Joe’s, Fresh & Easy’s, and WalMart. The price differences are huge.
Again, I’d put the unionized stores into the same category as the UAW-dominated automakers compared to the nonunionized foreign-owned US auto plants over recent decades. We all know how that worked out for the shrunken UAW and their shrunken companies, and to the benefit of the non-unionized companies, the states they located in, and the consumer. Union work rules, pay scales, fringe benefits, and seniority rules are a burden on the employer that must be passed on to the consumer (or taxpayer, in the case of public employees).
Accordingly, consumers will vote with their feet and we should see a continuation of the shift toward nonunion stores. Consumer sovereignty still rules, thankfully.[/quote]But did consumers benefit from the non-union labor? Last I checked, Toyotas and Hondas were *more* expensive than the UAW-made cars.
One also has to take into consideration the fact that the wages of those consumers are also affected by the lower wages of the non-union shops, which decreases their purchasing power. This largely negates (I believe that, over time, it more than offsets) any benefits of lower prices.
IMHO, the non-union *companies* are the ones who benefit from the lack of unions, not consumers, and not employees. Now, some might argue that (the failed theory of) trickle-down economics will make this money somehow rain down upon the masses; but it’s been made painfully clear over the past 30 years that this is not how it works in real life.
August 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM #725127Participant[quote=EconProf]As big coupon-clipping comparison shoppers, my wife and I have learned to largely ignor the unionized chains like Von’s, Ralphs, and Albertson’s, and gravitated toward the Trader Joe’s, Fresh & Easy’s, and WalMart. The price differences are huge.
Again, I’d put the unionized stores into the same category as the UAW-dominated automakers compared to the nonunionized foreign-owned US auto plants over recent decades. We all know how that worked out for the shrunken UAW and their shrunken companies, and to the benefit of the non-unionized companies, the states they located in, and the consumer. Union work rules, pay scales, fringe benefits, and seniority rules are a burden on the employer that must be passed on to the consumer (or taxpayer, in the case of public employees).
Accordingly, consumers will vote with their feet and we should see a continuation of the shift toward nonunion stores. Consumer sovereignty still rules, thankfully.[/quote]But did consumers benefit from the non-union labor? Last I checked, Toyotas and Hondas were *more* expensive than the UAW-made cars.
One also has to take into consideration the fact that the wages of those consumers are also affected by the lower wages of the non-union shops, which decreases their purchasing power. This largely negates (I believe that, over time, it more than offsets) any benefits of lower prices.
IMHO, the non-union *companies* are the ones who benefit from the lack of unions, not consumers, and not employees. Now, some might argue that (the failed theory of) trickle-down economics will make this money somehow rain down upon the masses; but it’s been made painfully clear over the past 30 years that this is not how it works in real life.
August 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM #725283Participant[quote=EconProf]As big coupon-clipping comparison shoppers, my wife and I have learned to largely ignor the unionized chains like Von’s, Ralphs, and Albertson’s, and gravitated toward the Trader Joe’s, Fresh & Easy’s, and WalMart. The price differences are huge.
Again, I’d put the unionized stores into the same category as the UAW-dominated automakers compared to the nonunionized foreign-owned US auto plants over recent decades. We all know how that worked out for the shrunken UAW and their shrunken companies, and to the benefit of the non-unionized companies, the states they located in, and the consumer. Union work rules, pay scales, fringe benefits, and seniority rules are a burden on the employer that must be passed on to the consumer (or taxpayer, in the case of public employees).
Accordingly, consumers will vote with their feet and we should see a continuation of the shift toward nonunion stores. Consumer sovereignty still rules, thankfully.[/quote]But did consumers benefit from the non-union labor? Last I checked, Toyotas and Hondas were *more* expensive than the UAW-made cars.
One also has to take into consideration the fact that the wages of those consumers are also affected by the lower wages of the non-union shops, which decreases their purchasing power. This largely negates (I believe that, over time, it more than offsets) any benefits of lower prices.
IMHO, the non-union *companies* are the ones who benefit from the lack of unions, not consumers, and not employees. Now, some might argue that (the failed theory of) trickle-down economics will make this money somehow rain down upon the masses; but it’s been made painfully clear over the past 30 years that this is not how it works in real life.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.