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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (70773)	9/3/2014 12:27:56 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

>> the fact is, at that time and place, it worked.. It depends on what the meaning of "it" is. If "it" means giving people raises so they could afford to buy the product they're manufacturing, of course it didn't. If "it" means giving people raises made workers FLOOD into the plant applying for jobs so as to keep his assembly line running, yes, it worked. In a 1952 book, Edward Peter Garret described his contemporaneous interviews with Ford. When asked why Ford was raising wages he said, "If the floor sweeper’s heart is in his job he can save us five dollars a day by picking up small tools instead of sweeping them out." Ford said he realized that to keep workers who could handle the monotony of his assembly line higher wages were necessary (they were, after all, experiencing walkouts and sickouts which shut down the line). The repetitive nature of the work such that many workers simply couldn't tolerate a nine hour work day. As the same time Ford cut the work day to eight hours. Was THAT so they could better afford to buy cars? He DID comment that "one's own employees ought to be one's best customers." And that is a reasonable assertion. But the claim that it actually increased profits because they were able to buy the cars is just stupid. If you're building 10,000 cars a day that is a few days' production over a couple years, not a significant increment in revenue for the additional cost of paying double the wages. What it DID do was allow him to build cars in volume and undercut the competition and THAT is why it was a profitable move. Just about as free-market as anyone could imagine. HAS NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT TELLING ANYONE WHAT TO PAY. Dickweed.