Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (7027)	1/18/2012 2:10:06 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

You claim an affinity for the Austrians, but it's painfully obvious you have no familiarity with their literature - or lack the capacity to comprehend. The Henry Ford BS is a concoction of people who don't understand the processes, so imagine scenarios to fit their childish delusions. The level of capital development at the time was such that labor on the assembly lines was brutal in comparison. His labor force was turning over almost three times annually and interfering with possible production. His response was to raise wages to retain workers, a decision vindicated by response from his customers and his employees, or, "The Market". Worked out well, led to more and better. I'm retired, my savings wounded, so shop at WalMart as much as possible. I'm heavy on groceries, so guess my savings at around 28 - 30%. That leaves some change to either buy more or spend a little elsewhere. Now multiply a piss-ant like myself by 41 to 43 million others each month. With higher prices, what do you think would be the effect on total economic activity? On employment in retail, production, packaging, transportation? Up till about a year ago I had to do maybe half my grocery shopping at non-Walmarts, had a short conversation with a grey-haired and wrinkled checker there. I muttered about how much Safeway and Albertsons, et al, made me appreciate WallyWorld. Turns out her pension saving had recently largely evaporated and WalMart was the onliest employer would offer her work. She was damn well grateful. Interferences by government with rational economic calculations have so distorted markets, medical care being a worst example, that it's increasingly unaffordable. And you seem to represent a plurality that believes exercise of moral intuition through the anointing of more and better thieves and hustlers will make things better instead of worse. Your kind are preventing a return to principles that have stood the test of experience.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (7027)	1/18/2012 4:55:40 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

On Henry Ford and his $5 a day Written by Tim Worstall It's a fairly common trope in US lefty land that Henry Ford and his $5 a day wages back in 1913 marked a huge change in labour relations. He was moved to raise wages so high (approximately double the prevailing wage) so as to help create a market for his own products. This is an interesting thought, certainly, but not one that stands much examination. That year his establishment of workers was some 14,000 head: his sales some 170,000 and that's just the year that he started ramping up production through the moving assembly line (reaching 500,000 in a couple of years and near a million within a decade). The spending power of his workforce was entirely marginal. No, the real value to Ford of his high wages was, as with the living wage we looked at yesterday, that he was paying higher wages than his competitors. Twice what his competitors were paying in fact. In 1913 he had a turnover of over 50,000 workers to keep that establishment of 14,000. Paying hugely higher wages than everyone else in the nascent manufacturing industry of the time meant that he lowered turnover, thus recruitment and training costs. We might also note that he wasn't in fact paying higher wages: he was offering a bonus, a highly conditional bonus: The $5 a day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees' homes to ensure that they were doing things the American way. They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home. The stories we're told about matters historical often don't stand up to all that much detailed scrutiny which is why they are more properly referred to not as history but as legends: highly partisan legends. adamsmith.org Yeah its a pretty crazy idea. If you pay your employees more, that adds to your cost in direct terms (although it can lower costs associated with turnover like training costs, and possibly allow you to be more selective about who you hire, so its not always a negative for the company), its very unlikely you can make up those costs through the employees buying more of your product. Their marginal propensity to spend extra cash on your product is probably far less than 100%. I can imagine a scenario where it could work that employees buying more of your product, helped your company grow, if somehow the employees all really wanted your product, but almost none of them could afford it, then you give them a moderate raise, and now they can and do buy it so their marginal propensity to spend that extra cash on your product is far above 100%, but that is a very unrealistic scenario for the entire workforce, even if it could happen for a specific individual. Also as Worstall points out, even if every employee bought a Ford because of this raise (and none of them would buy it without one), that is only 14,000 additional customers (not annual sales, the annual sales addition would be less, few people buy a new car every year) out of total annual sales of 170,000 to 500,000. For Ford the raise apparently made some sense, but not "so the employees would be able to buy the product", but because he could reduce turnover, and so he could push his social agenda on the employees by paying them bonuses (amounting to about half their pay) for acting the way he wanted them to act. I'm no sure how much of the benefit in Ford's eyes came from each of those things. Message 27092445

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (7027)	1/18/2012 5:23:18 PM
From: Little Joe	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

" I'm not so much of a libertarian that I'm willing to push a sick child or mother or even a man into the street because they don't have the money to pay for care. " but apparently you seem to think that employing some one creates an obligation to provide for their medical care, that you object to assuming as a tax payer. So Walmart is somehow heartless for not paying for medical care, aren't you equally as bad for not wanting to pay for their medical care, and not paying enough to provide food, etd for their family, etc. It just makes no sense. lj