Why can I not get a loan?

[sdrealtor]

A quote to live by that a good friend shared with me at one of my lowest points.

“Tough people last, tough times don’t”

[BGinRB]

[quote=davelj]

Every study done on the subject suggests that US workers in most unionized manufacturing jobs – just to use a specific sector of the unionized workforce – are measurably more productive than their counterparts in emerging countries. In a competitive context they are more productive and should be paid more. The problem is that they are paid TOO MUCH more – that is, the pay gap isn’t justified by the incremental productivity. If wages were the only thing that mattered there wouldn’t be any manufacturing in the US at all. And yet despite its shrinking portion of total employment, we still have a boatload of manufacturing done here in the US. No, the problem is that too many folks are getting paid $35/hour – just to throw out a number – when $25/hour is the number that keeps their company in business… and their job safe. Those don’t seem like “third-world” wages to me.

But where I, personally, am concerned I’m more than happy to “lead the way,” as you put it. I’m in private equity, so to some extent I already compete with everyone in the world in the work I do. If someone wants to try to outsource my work, I say have at it. It’s literally impossible, of course, because it relies too heavily on relationships, face-to-face interaction, and on-site due diligence. But if someone can figure out a way to do it for less they should absolutely do it. I’m happy to compete with anyone on the planet at whatever wage the market will bear.
[/quote]

You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.

Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?

[BGinRB]

[quote=davelj]

Every study done on the subject suggests that US workers in most unionized manufacturing jobs – just to use a specific sector of the unionized workforce – are measurably more productive than their counterparts in emerging countries. In a competitive context they are more productive and should be paid more. The problem is that they are paid TOO MUCH more – that is, the pay gap isn’t justified by the incremental productivity. If wages were the only thing that mattered there wouldn’t be any manufacturing in the US at all. And yet despite its shrinking portion of total employment, we still have a boatload of manufacturing done here in the US. No, the problem is that too many folks are getting paid $35/hour – just to throw out a number – when $25/hour is the number that keeps their company in business… and their job safe. Those don’t seem like “third-world” wages to me.

But where I, personally, am concerned I’m more than happy to “lead the way,” as you put it. I’m in private equity, so to some extent I already compete with everyone in the world in the work I do. If someone wants to try to outsource my work, I say have at it. It’s literally impossible, of course, because it relies too heavily on relationships, face-to-face interaction, and on-site due diligence. But if someone can figure out a way to do it for less they should absolutely do it. I’m happy to compete with anyone on the planet at whatever wage the market will bear.
[/quote]

You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.

Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?

[BGinRB]

[quote=davelj]

Every study done on the subject suggests that US workers in most unionized manufacturing jobs – just to use a specific sector of the unionized workforce – are measurably more productive than their counterparts in emerging countries. In a competitive context they are more productive and should be paid more. The problem is that they are paid TOO MUCH more – that is, the pay gap isn’t justified by the incremental productivity. If wages were the only thing that mattered there wouldn’t be any manufacturing in the US at all. And yet despite its shrinking portion of total employment, we still have a boatload of manufacturing done here in the US. No, the problem is that too many folks are getting paid $35/hour – just to throw out a number – when $25/hour is the number that keeps their company in business… and their job safe. Those don’t seem like “third-world” wages to me.

But where I, personally, am concerned I’m more than happy to “lead the way,” as you put it. I’m in private equity, so to some extent I already compete with everyone in the world in the work I do. If someone wants to try to outsource my work, I say have at it. It’s literally impossible, of course, because it relies too heavily on relationships, face-to-face interaction, and on-site due diligence. But if someone can figure out a way to do it for less they should absolutely do it. I’m happy to compete with anyone on the planet at whatever wage the market will bear.
[/quote]

You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.

Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?

[BGinRB]

[quote=davelj]

Every study done on the subject suggests that US workers in most unionized manufacturing jobs – just to use a specific sector of the unionized workforce – are measurably more productive than their counterparts in emerging countries. In a competitive context they are more productive and should be paid more. The problem is that they are paid TOO MUCH more – that is, the pay gap isn’t justified by the incremental productivity. If wages were the only thing that mattered there wouldn’t be any manufacturing in the US at all. And yet despite its shrinking portion of total employment, we still have a boatload of manufacturing done here in the US. No, the problem is that too many folks are getting paid $35/hour – just to throw out a number – when $25/hour is the number that keeps their company in business… and their job safe. Those don’t seem like “third-world” wages to me.

But where I, personally, am concerned I’m more than happy to “lead the way,” as you put it. I’m in private equity, so to some extent I already compete with everyone in the world in the work I do. If someone wants to try to outsource my work, I say have at it. It’s literally impossible, of course, because it relies too heavily on relationships, face-to-face interaction, and on-site due diligence. But if someone can figure out a way to do it for less they should absolutely do it. I’m happy to compete with anyone on the planet at whatever wage the market will bear.
[/quote]

You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.

Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?

[BGinRB]

[quote=davelj]

Every study done on the subject suggests that US workers in most unionized manufacturing jobs – just to use a specific sector of the unionized workforce – are measurably more productive than their counterparts in emerging countries. In a competitive context they are more productive and should be paid more. The problem is that they are paid TOO MUCH more – that is, the pay gap isn’t justified by the incremental productivity. If wages were the only thing that mattered there wouldn’t be any manufacturing in the US at all. And yet despite its shrinking portion of total employment, we still have a boatload of manufacturing done here in the US. No, the problem is that too many folks are getting paid $35/hour – just to throw out a number – when $25/hour is the number that keeps their company in business… and their job safe. Those don’t seem like “third-world” wages to me.

But where I, personally, am concerned I’m more than happy to “lead the way,” as you put it. I’m in private equity, so to some extent I already compete with everyone in the world in the work I do. If someone wants to try to outsource my work, I say have at it. It’s literally impossible, of course, because it relies too heavily on relationships, face-to-face interaction, and on-site due diligence. But if someone can figure out a way to do it for less they should absolutely do it. I’m happy to compete with anyone on the planet at whatever wage the market will bear.
[/quote]

You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.

Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?

[davelj]

[quote=BGinRB]
You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.

Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?

[/quote]

Actually, labor unions arise for BOTH reasons, both to capture a larger portion of the economic profit AND to protect themselves from competition. As you must know, after all, in many unionized professions in the US, you simply can’t have the job if you’re not a member of the union. That’s about as straightforward a manner as you can find to restrict the supply of workers, thus driving up the price for said workers. So let’s not pretend that restricting competition isn’t one of the primary rationales for organizing. C’mon.

My suggestion is to cut the pay of BOTH union (line) workers AND executives in those industries – such as the auto industry – that are not able to compete with imports or non-union companies. Both employee groups should be eating significant pay cuts.

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.

[davelj]

[quote=BGinRB]
You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.

Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?

[/quote]

Actually, labor unions arise for BOTH reasons, both to capture a larger portion of the economic profit AND to protect themselves from competition. As you must know, after all, in many unionized professions in the US, you simply can’t have the job if you’re not a member of the union. That’s about as straightforward a manner as you can find to restrict the supply of workers, thus driving up the price for said workers. So let’s not pretend that restricting competition isn’t one of the primary rationales for organizing. C’mon.

My suggestion is to cut the pay of BOTH union (line) workers AND executives in those industries – such as the auto industry – that are not able to compete with imports or non-union companies. Both employee groups should be eating significant pay cuts.

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.

[davelj]

[quote=BGinRB]
You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.

Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?

[/quote]

Actually, labor unions arise for BOTH reasons, both to capture a larger portion of the economic profit AND to protect themselves from competition. As you must know, after all, in many unionized professions in the US, you simply can’t have the job if you’re not a member of the union. That’s about as straightforward a manner as you can find to restrict the supply of workers, thus driving up the price for said workers. So let’s not pretend that restricting competition isn’t one of the primary rationales for organizing. C’mon.

My suggestion is to cut the pay of BOTH union (line) workers AND executives in those industries – such as the auto industry – that are not able to compete with imports or non-union companies. Both employee groups should be eating significant pay cuts.

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.

[davelj]

[quote=BGinRB]
You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.

Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?

[/quote]

Actually, labor unions arise for BOTH reasons, both to capture a larger portion of the economic profit AND to protect themselves from competition. As you must know, after all, in many unionized professions in the US, you simply can’t have the job if you’re not a member of the union. That’s about as straightforward a manner as you can find to restrict the supply of workers, thus driving up the price for said workers. So let’s not pretend that restricting competition isn’t one of the primary rationales for organizing. C’mon.

My suggestion is to cut the pay of BOTH union (line) workers AND executives in those industries – such as the auto industry – that are not able to compete with imports or non-union companies. Both employee groups should be eating significant pay cuts.

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.

[davelj]

[quote=BGinRB]
You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.

I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.

Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?

[/quote]

Actually, labor unions arise for BOTH reasons, both to capture a larger portion of the economic profit AND to protect themselves from competition. As you must know, after all, in many unionized professions in the US, you simply can’t have the job if you’re not a member of the union. That’s about as straightforward a manner as you can find to restrict the supply of workers, thus driving up the price for said workers. So let’s not pretend that restricting competition isn’t one of the primary rationales for organizing. C’mon.

My suggestion is to cut the pay of BOTH union (line) workers AND executives in those industries – such as the auto industry – that are not able to compete with imports or non-union companies. Both employee groups should be eating significant pay cuts.

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.

[Blissful Ignoramus]

For the OP:

http://www.bubbleinfo.com/2009/01/squishy-poo-poo/

[Blissful Ignoramus]

For the OP:

http://www.bubbleinfo.com/2009/01/squishy-poo-poo/

[Blissful Ignoramus]

For the OP:

http://www.bubbleinfo.com/2009/01/squishy-poo-poo/

[Blissful Ignoramus]

For the OP:

http://www.bubbleinfo.com/2009/01/squishy-poo-poo/

[Author]

Posts