PDA

View Full Version : Economy robust, middle class income dropping?


Mosca
05-26-2007, 11:04 AM
Comments? I've noticed this in my daily work, which consists partly of analyzing creditworthiness. I have no immediate opinion on the study's validity, but I thought some would find it interesting, seeing as how there has been a lot of talk in the media about "the war on the middle class".



NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- American men in their 30s are earning less than their father's generation did, challenging a long-held belief that each generation will be better off than the one that preceded it, according to a new study published Friday.

The report, the first in an ongoing 18-month study on economic mobility in the United States, also revealed that the income growth of the median American household is declining.

The study was produced by a handful of politically diverse think tanks including the Pew Charitable Trusts, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Urban Institute. It looked at income levels of American men in their 30s, which can be a good indicator of lifetime income.

Relying on Census Bureau figures, the study's authors found that after adjusting for inflation, men in their 30s in 2004 had a median income of about $35,000 per year, for a 12 percent drop compared with $40,000 per year for men in the same age group in 1974.

That stood in stark contrast to men in their 30s in 1994, who earned 5 percent more than their fathers did.

Similarly, American families, which experienced a 32 percent increase in income levels between 1964 and 1994, saw household income growth slow to 9 percent between 1974 and 2004, according to the report.

"There is clearly some story here that [U.S.] productivity gains are not trickling down to the median family," said John Morton, a co-author of the study and the managing director of economic policy initiatives at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Even as male incomes have declined and household income growth has slowed, the nation's productivity has remained robust. While the two once kept pace with each other, U.S. productivity has quickly outpaced income growth since the mid-1970s, according to the report.

The study's authors, who plan to examine relative mobility, or the ability of Americans to move up or or down in social strata, said their report shows the canonical belief in an American meritocracy may be unraveling.

"The expectation that each generation will do better than their parents has become a fundamental part of what we call 'The American Dream,'" said Morton. "But this new analysis suggests this bedrock belief may be shifting under our feet."

fansince'76
05-26-2007, 11:14 AM
I believe it. It's also instructive to note that in 1980, CEO compensation vs. rank-and-file worker wages was about a 40/1 ratio. Today, it's almost a 300/1 ratio. Productivity has gone way up during the same period, but it's executive management reaping the benefits, not the average worker.

Ratio of CEO to average worker pay 1965-2005 (http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/03/SWA06_Fig3Z.jpg)

Jeremy
05-26-2007, 12:11 PM
What do you really expect when you've had a Republican President and a Republican Congress in place for as long as we've had? It's not just BushCo either.

Go back and look at Reaganomics and you won't need to wonder about how we've gotten to this point.

Godfather
05-27-2007, 10:07 PM
It's even worse when you take housing prices, student loans, and insurance into account--the cost of living has gone up by more than what the CPI says.

GBMelBlount
05-27-2007, 10:44 PM
I believe it. It's also instructive to note that in 1980, CEO compensation vs. rank-and-file worker wages was about a 40/1 ratio. Today, it's almost a 300/1 ratio. Productivity has gone way up during the same period, but it's executive management reaping the benefits, not the average worker.

Ratio of CEO to average worker pay 1965-2005 (http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/03/SWA06_Fig3Z.jpg)

'76, I am pretty much rank and file. One of my fraternity brothers works for a local bank and makes $10,000,000 plus per year. Do I think he earns it, yes, he is brilliant!!! Could I ever do his job, no. Point being, anyone (like me) can do appropriate data entry out of 40 applicants. The CEO's, CFO's, Presidents, are like the rudder on a huge corporate ship, directing them to failure or success. Even at apparent "high" rates, brilliant people, like my frat bro, are often worth their pay. That is why they are paid the bucks. Capitalism. God Bless America!!!!

Atlanta Dan
05-27-2007, 11:44 PM
'76, I am pretty much rank and file. One of my fraternity brothers works for a local bank and makes $10,000,000 plus per year. Do I think he earns it, yes, he is brilliant!!! Could I ever do his job, no. Point being, anyone (like me) can do appropriate data entry out of 40 applicants. The CEO's, CFO's, Presidents, are like the rudder on a huge corporate ship, directing them to failure or success. Even at apparent "high" rates, brilliant people, like my frat bro, are often worth their pay. That is why they are paid the bucks. Capitalism. God Bless America!!!!

Of course under the heads I win, tails you lose model of executive compensation in modern American capitalism, top execs make out whether or not the stock price tanks (stock option backdating) and win Powerball even if they steer the ship onto the rocks (Bob Nardelli at Home Depot). Hard to see how the capitalistic creed of rewarding success and punishing failure supports those outcomes.

GBMelBlount
05-27-2007, 11:47 PM
Of course under the heads I win, tails you lose model of executive compensation in modern American capitalism, top execs make out whether or not the stock price tanks (stock option backdating) and win Powerball even if they steer the ship onto the rocks (Bob Nardelli at Home Depot). Hard to see how the capitalistic creed of rewarding success and punishing failure supports those outcomes.


Most of the President, CEO, CFO income is OUTCOMES / performance based.

Atlanta Dan
05-28-2007, 11:28 AM
Most of the President, CEO, CFO income is OUTCOMES / performance based.

Well, it is supposed to be, but the Wall Street Journal (not exactly a pillar of socialism) reported on this disgusting practice following 9-11.

"On Sept. 21, 2001, rescuers dug through the smoldering remains of the World Trade Center. Across town, families buried two firefighters found a week earlier. At Fort Drum, on the edge of New York's Adirondacks, soldiers readied for deployment halfway across the world.

Boards of directors of scores of American companies were also busy that day. They handed out millions of bargain-priced stock options to their top executives.

The terrorist attack shut the U.S. stock market for days. When it reopened Sept. 17, stocks skidded more than 14% over five days, in the worst full week for the Dow Jones Industrial Average since Germany invaded France in May 1940. But for recipients of options, the lower their company's stock price when options are awarded the better, since the options grant a right to buy shares at that price for years to come. The grants set recipients up for millions of dollars in profit if the shares recovered.

A Wall Street Journal analysis shows how some companies rushed, amid the post-9/11 stock-market decline, to give executives especially valuable options. A review of Standard & Poor's ExecuComp data for 1,800 leading companies indicates that from Sept. 17, 2001, through the end of the month, 511 top executives at 186 of these companies got stock-option grants. The number who received grants was 2.6 times as many as in the same stretch of September in 2000, and more than twice as many as in the like period in any other year between 1999 and 2003.

Ninety-one companies that didn't regularly grant stock options in September did so in the first two weeks of trading after the terror attack. Their grants were concentrated around Sept. 21, when the market reached its post-attack low. They were worth about $325 million when granted, based on a standard method of valuing stock options."

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-TimingOP0607-14.html?printVersion=true


Stock options are a defensible means of rewarding performance when properly accounted for, but the practice of backdating options, the post 9-11 incidents described above, and the failure to account for the cost of these options when exercised are indicative of executive compensation practices that loot the company and often have little to do with a reward for a job well done.

steelerbackr4life
05-28-2007, 11:50 AM
Without trying to go off topic. I think the rate of decreased income and increased productivity can be traced to the decline of good paying union jobs.

SteelCityMan786
05-28-2007, 12:25 PM
What do you really expect when you've had a Republican President and a Republican Congress in place for as long as we've had? It's not just BushCo either.

Go back and look at Reaganomics and you won't need to wonder about how we've gotten to this point.

Don't forget that republican congress was around during the Clinton Administration as well. I'm also sick and tired of Democrats blaming us(The Republican Party) for the shape the country is in when all parties are responsible. A lot of Democrat like to act like Republicans are the only party in Congress when Republicans like myself know that it's not just Republicans in Congress, it's Republicans AND Democrats.

Godfather
05-28-2007, 01:08 PM
Don't forget that republican congress was around during the Clinton Administration as well. I'm also sick and tired of Democrats blaming us(The Republican Party) for the shape the country is in when all parties are responsible. A lot of Democrat like to act like Republicans are the only party in Congress when Republicans like myself know that it's not just Republicans in Congress, it's Republicans AND Democrats.

Yep, and in fairness stagflation, WIN, LBJ'sattempts to have both guns and butter,etc. happened before 1980.

Reagan did cause some damage, like allowing Japanese export subsidies and running up the deficit, but he's not to blame for the majority of the problem.

Godfather
05-28-2007, 01:13 PM
'76, I am pretty much rank and file. One of my fraternity brothers works for a local bank and makes $10,000,000 plus per year. Do I think he earns it, yes, he is brilliant!!! Could I ever do his job, no. Point being, anyone (like me) can do appropriate data entry out of 40 applicants. The CEO's, CFO's, Presidents, are like the rudder on a huge corporate ship, directing them to failure or success. Even at apparent "high" rates, brilliant people, like my frat bro, are often worth their pay. That is why they are paid the bucks. Capitalism. God Bless America!!!!

Not so sure...as others have already pointed out, CEOs get rich even when they do a horrible job. That's not capitalism.

And there are executives in other countries who could and would do the job for far less money. If we really had capitalism, CEO jobs would be outsourced in a heartbeat. Unfortunately we have cronyism on too many corporate boards--basically big companies are run by politicians who are generous with other people's money.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-28-2007, 02:27 PM
What do you really expect when you've had a Republican President and a Republican Congress in place for as long as we've had? It's not just BushCo either.

Go back and look at Reaganomics and you won't need to wonder about how we've gotten to this point.

Jeremy....not sure if you are able to remember far enough back....but prior to "reaganonics"...we were dealing with 18% interest rates and skyrocket inflation under Carter.....You really need to quit pointing fingers at one party ....If anyone here thinks that either party is the savior of this country they have neve met a politician.

Stlrs4Life
05-28-2007, 03:14 PM
Without trying to go off topic. I think the rate of decreased income and increased productivity can be traced to the decline of good paying union jobs.



Soooo true. It's all about corporate greed. I don't even believe there is a middle class anymore. And at 1 time, and most today, the middle class is the ones that keep this country going.

revefsreleets
05-29-2007, 07:27 PM
This is also a really complicated issue. Anyone remember when households were single income and only the man worked? It was an impossible dream to think that as the World shrank the US would be able to stay so dominant. Globalization was inevitable and is largely responsible for what we are seeing now. But politicians need to keep Americans thinking they are doing better then before, so they use tricks, like making it at first acceptable, and now commonplace for mothers too leave the home and work and artifically boost the per home income.

The Republicans and Democrats dreamed this one up together, so it's no sense trying to blame one or the other.

HeyNav
05-29-2007, 10:03 PM
Typical talking points: When economy under President Clinton was raising all boats, only because the Republican Congress was the majority party. When the size of the military was reduced after the fall of the Berlin wall and cold war won single handedly by President Reagan, the same majority republican congress taking credit for the Clinton economy assigned all blame to Clintion for the reduction. Again "heads I win, tails you loose. Republicans can never accept responsiblity for anything, ever. Blame Clinton broken record is a tired argument. Seems to me both parties are responsible at least in part for all actions and results. Credit and blame can be assigned to both parties.

LarryNJ
05-30-2007, 05:19 AM
I think the rate of decreased income and increased productivity can be traced to the decline of good paying union jobs.

Soooo true. It's all about corporate greed.

Is it corporate greed to want a worker to actually earn their paycheck? The decline of good paying union jobs can be traced to the union greed as much as corporate greed. Funny how's it's considered greed for a company to make a profit, but it's ok for the unions to rob & steal from a company and their members.

One reason why they are making less is the work ethic of the 20 or 30 somethings isn't what it is of people in their 40's & 50's. Do they really deserve it or do they want it handed to them?

Hammer67
06-03-2007, 12:06 PM
Is it corporate greed to want a worker to actually earn their paycheck? The decline of good paying union jobs can be traced to the union greed as much as corporate greed. Funny how's it's considered greed for a company to make a profit, but it's ok for the unions to rob & steal from a company and their members.

One reason why they are making less is the work ethic of the 20 or 30 somethings isn't what it is of people in their 40's & 50's. Do they really deserve it or do they want it handed to them?

AMEN Larry! :cheers:

I moved to Detroit to work at Ford. Let me tell you what is killing the automotive industry. A guy on the line in a factory zipping two rivets into sheet metal all day long whining about making only $25 an hour and that he might lose his post retirement health care supplied by the company!!!! What a crock of shit!

If any area should know about the labor crisis and Union pay it is Pittsburgh. That is why the city was a decaying pit for 20+ years after all the mills closed.

These Union laborers are the same folks who have a summer home up north, boats, multiple cars nice homes, etc. For doing a repetitive job that a machine could do.

I am not saying I am any better (I work in IT) but I am not complaining, and I don't need a union.

The Unions were valuable earlier in the 20th century. Now, that all the labor laws they wanted were passed, they are unnecessary.

The same is happening in Detroit.

Jeremy
06-03-2007, 01:53 PM
Jeremy....not sure if you are able to remember far enough back....but prior to "reaganonics"...we were dealing with 18% interest rates and skyrocket inflation under Carter.....You really need to quit pointing fingers at one party ....If anyone here thinks that either party is the savior of this country they have neve met a politician.

Both have exacerbated the problem over the years. The problem is that we're dealing with lawyers and political science majors running the country's economy. None of these people really know what they're doing and many of them are unwilling to listen to people who do have an idea. I pointed our Reaganomics because it set the dangerous precedent of giving tax breaks to the higher income brackets in the futile hope that they would pass along the wealth. It was an idea that was needed at the time, but it has outlived it's usefulness and should be discarded. However, many conservatives today still cling to the theory.

Jeremy
06-03-2007, 01:54 PM
AMEN Larry! :cheers:

I moved to Detroit to work at Ford. Let me tell you what is killing the automotive industry. A guy on the line in a factory zipping two rivets into sheet metal all day long whining about making only $25 an hour and that he might lose his post retirement health care supplied by the company!!!! What a crock of shit!

If any area should know about the labor crisis and Union pay it is Pittsburgh. That is why the city was a decaying pit for 20+ years after all the mills closed.

These Union laborers are the same folks who have a summer home up north, boats, multiple cars nice homes, etc. For doing a repetitive job that a machine could do.

I am not saying I am any better (I work in IT) but I am not complaining, and I don't need a union.

The Unions were valuable earlier in the 20th century. Now, that all the labor laws they wanted were passed, they are unnecessary.

The same is happening in Detroit.


The day you eliminate Unions is the same day that politicians start making plans to roll back those labor laws the unions fought so hard for.

Hammer67
06-03-2007, 03:58 PM
The day you eliminate Unions is the same day that politicians start making plans to roll back those labor laws the unions fought so hard for.

I highly doubt that. And, they will never go away.

Then there are the teachers unions...my buddy. 29 year old HS english teacher. Bitches non stop about pay and benefits and how they want to strike, etc. etc. This is the same guy that sits on his ass for 3 months during the summer playing his Playstation and doing work around his yard. I told him to get a summer job and that his pay was better then mine if he prorated it for all 12 months instead of the 9 he really works.

Unions are outdated. I have no problem finding decent paying work and I don't have a union. They just become enablers for lazyness.

I work in IT at one of the Big Three auto companies, in their main data center. We have union Millwrights at one of our data centers. If I were to ship a server over there, we aren't aloud to just carry it up to the floor it needs to go to. You have to submit some form and it gets done a day later. We waste tens of thousands of dollars once you add up all the extra days that keeps a server out of commission. Just because some guy needs to justify his existence. They just sit around drinking coffee and reading the paper most of the day.

My grandfather, who was a foreman at J&L Steele and worked there for over 40 years bitches non stop about the union...and he was in it!

Stlrs4Life
06-03-2007, 06:37 PM
The day you eliminate Unions is the same day that politicians start making plans to roll back those labor laws the unions fought so hard for.


Excactly, they have already tried.


There is greed on both parts, no doubt, each side is going to look out for themselves. I work in the Automotive industry, and we're union, we have basically worked well with our Mgmt. I work for a supplier.

Jeremy
06-03-2007, 07:29 PM
I highly doubt that. And, they will never go away.

Then there are the teachers unions...my buddy. 29 year old HS english teacher. Bitches non stop about pay and benefits and how they want to strike, etc. etc. This is the same guy that sits on his ass for 3 months during the summer playing his Playstation and doing work around his yard. I told him to get a summer job and that his pay was better then mine if he prorated it for all 12 months instead of the 9 he really works.

Unions are outdated. I have no problem finding decent paying work and I don't have a union. They just become enablers for lazyness.

I work in IT at one of the Big Three auto companies, in their main data center. We have union Millwrights at one of our data centers. If I were to ship a server over there, we aren't aloud to just carry it up to the floor it needs to go to. You have to submit some form and it gets done a day later. We waste tens of thousands of dollars once you add up all the extra days that keeps a server out of commission. Just because some guy needs to justify his existence. They just sit around drinking coffee and reading the paper most of the day.

My grandfather, who was a foreman at J&L Steele and worked there for over 40 years bitches non stop about the union...and he was in it!


You think that's because of the Unions? Son I'm military and it's just as bed here. It's about management covering their asses. Your grand dad may bitch about Unions, but I bet he never gave back one of his Union benefits did he.

They've been around since they were called trade guilds in the Middle Ages and they're not going away. People are always going to form associations that benefit everyone in the group. If you're really in IT like you say you are, you probably belong to at least two or three. Besides, some of the standard clauses in your contract are there because of the hard work and sacrifice of people who came before you. At the very least, you should show a little appreciation for the things you have because management damn sure wouldn't have given them to you. They were earned by people before you.

Now I'm fired up, so I'll let this go now.

LarryNJ
06-03-2007, 08:16 PM
No one is questioning that unions weren't needed in the past. The argument is that the unions have gone way too far, they have stolen from the companies they work for and from their own members and there isn't much of a need for them anymore.

I was self employeed and a member of the Operating Engineers. Can someone explain why I had to pay Local 66 in Pittsburgh over $3.00 an hour more than what I paid the Washington DC local 77? The benefit package was exactly the same. Where did that extra money go?

How many people worked or had friends who worked in a steel mill bragged about do nothing for 8 or more hours? I certianly don't think the fall of the steel industry was all the unions fault but if you don't think they had a major part of it you're living in a fantasy world.

Are there companies that are run by people who are only looking out for themselves? Of course. Are there many union leaders who hide behind the "we are looking out for our members," but in reality they are filling their pockets along with the pockets of their friends with huge amounts of money and they don't give a shit about the members? Absolutely. Are there many union members who are like robots and only think what their leaders tell them what to think? I believe so.

As for Jeremy and the military comment. That's run by our goverment which is by far worse than any union or private managment there is. Covering their asses? I think that's one of the biggest problems our country faces today. No ones wants to take responsibility for anything. It seems everyone wants to blame someone else.

Stlrs4Life
06-03-2007, 10:12 PM
No one is questioning that unions weren't needed in the past. The argument is that the unions have gone way too far, they have stolen from the companies they work for and from their own members and there isn't much of a need for them anymore.

I was self employeed and a member of the Operating Engineers. Can someone explain why I had to pay Local 66 in Pittsburgh over $3.00 an hour more than what I paid the Washington DC local 77? The benefit package was exactly the same. Where did that extra money go?

How many people worked or had friends who worked in a steel mill bragged about do nothing for 8 or more hours? I certianly don't think the fall of the steel industry was all the unions fault but if you don't think they had a major part of it you're living in a fantasy world.

Are there companies that are run by people who are only looking out for themselves? Of course. Are there many union leaders who hide behind the "we are looking out for our members," but in reality they are filling their pockets along with the pockets of their friends with huge amounts of money and they don't give a shit about the members? Absolutely. Are there many union members who are like robots and only think what their leaders tell them what to think? I believe so.

As for Jeremy and the military comment. That's run by our goverment which is by far worse than any union or private managment there is. Covering their asses? I think that's one of the biggest problems our country faces today. No ones wants to take responsibility for anything. It seems everyone wants to blame someone else.


As far as this stuff of people getting paid for 8 hrs sitting around doing nothing is a crock also. Not 1 person in my plant sits around and does nothing. Mgmt sitsaround more tha anyof us do.


I agree, it is partly the unions fault pertaining to the fall of the Steel Industry, but the corporations were just as greedy, and at fault.

Preacher
06-03-2007, 10:48 PM
Unions and corporations, republicans and democrats, are all fighting for bigger pieces of the pie. then they spend to retain power rather than help those who put them there. Unions do it...
Corporations do it.
Democrats sure as heck do it.
Republicans sure as heck do it.

One thing that will not solve ANYTHING is saying it is all HIS fault. Nope. Look in the mirror. That is who you should blame.

And as for the original post...

Reagan had a democratic congress for the most part... Clinton had a republican congress for the most part.

However... Except for taxing the heck out of the economy and shutting it down... the economy is in the hand of the Fed... NOT the president or congress.

Why are people not making as much now? Simple, more money drives higher prices. It was bound to catch up with us someday. that is economics 101.

And personally, I really want to know where these statistics come from. Cause from where I sit, I see a whole lot of people with a whole lot more buying power then thier parents had.

My goodness, the poor that I know have high speed internet, two TV's, etc.

Maybe the issue isn't buying power, but the fact that many people today are not willing to take the risks that thier parents were willing to take.

Also funny, I seem to remember an article that came out saying that Americans now work more hours then anyone else... including the Japanese.

On top of all that... let us also discuss what is driving up the cost of living in America... including EPA laws (which create all TYPES of financial problems, including HUNDREDS of extra dollars a year on gas), where I live, housing code laws (you have to buy 80 acres in order to build a house... which is artificially driving up housing costs), etc. etc.

There is SO MUCH that goes into the mix, that it is impossible to blame any one thing.

However, one thing IS true. We saw it in the 1960's, 1980's, and again in the 2000's, the best way to jump start an economy is to give money back to people to spend.

And as for that "Rich" idiocy...

I can't tell you how many self-employed businesses make 250,000 to 300,000 a year. They are considered "rich." However, they only clear 70-110 thousand a year. THEN, they have to pay for all the benefits that everyone else gets from thier companies. So much for the middle class... they get taxed into the lower middle class.

Which brings up another point I want to see...

How much were companies paying per employee in 1970 versus now?

I bet you will find the TOTAL pay PACKAGE per employee will be the same to higher...

LarryNJ
06-03-2007, 11:32 PM
80 acres to build a house? :jawdrop: Where do you live?

Mutiple Causation, we all learned it in high school and it applies here.


And personally, I really want to know where these statistics come from. Cause from where I sit, I see a whole lot of people with a whole lot more buying power then thier parents had.


That's a good point but unfortunately I'm past my 30's so I wouldn't count.

Jeremy
06-03-2007, 11:53 PM
No one is questioning that unions weren't needed in the past. The argument is that the unions have gone way too far, they have stolen from the companies they work for and from their own members and there isn't much of a need for them anymore.

I was self employeed and a member of the Operating Engineers. Can someone explain why I had to pay Local 66 in Pittsburgh over $3.00 an hour more than what I paid the Washington DC local 77? The benefit package was exactly the same. Where did that extra money go?

How many people worked or had friends who worked in a steel mill bragged about do nothing for 8 or more hours? I certianly don't think the fall of the steel industry was all the unions fault but if you don't think they had a major part of it you're living in a fantasy world.

Are there companies that are run by people who are only looking out for themselves? Of course. Are there many union leaders who hide behind the "we are looking out for our members," but in reality they are filling their pockets along with the pockets of their friends with huge amounts of money and they don't give a shit about the members? Absolutely. Are there many union members who are like robots and only think what their leaders tell them what to think? I believe so.

As for Jeremy and the military comment. That's run by our goverment which is by far worse than any union or private managment there is. Covering their asses? I think that's one of the biggest problems our country faces today. No ones wants to take responsibility for anything. It seems everyone wants to blame someone else.


I've been around Union work sites since I was 14. I have never seen anyone sitting on their ass. Matter of fact I've seen my dad send people home for not busting their ass as hard as their foreman was.

Preacher
06-04-2007, 12:01 AM
I've been around Union work sites since I was 14. I have never seen anyone sitting on their ass. Matter of fact I've seen my dad send people home for not busting their ass as hard as their foreman was.

Jeremy...

The people Larry talks about, and I saw protected on the job when I worked for the CWA are the ones that give your father (a union man) a bad name.

Hammer67
06-04-2007, 07:09 AM
You think that's because of the Unions? Son I'm military and it's just as bed here. It's about management covering their asses. Your grand dad may bitch about Unions, but I bet he never gave back one of his Union benefits did he.

They've been around since they were called trade guilds in the Middle Ages and they're not going away. People are always going to form associations that benefit everyone in the group. If you're really in IT like you say you are, you probably belong to at least two or three. Besides, some of the standard clauses in your contract are there because of the hard work and sacrifice of people who came before you. At the very least, you should show a little appreciation for the things you have because management damn sure wouldn't have given them to you. They were earned by people before you.

Now I'm fired up, so I'll let this go now.

#1) I appreciate what labor unions accomplished in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the US.

#2) Belong to 2 or 3 what? Unions? BS. I got hired on my own. Negotiated my own salary and benefits and don't pay union dues. As it should be. If I didn't like a job or pay, I found another job.

#3) The line about "appreciation for what you have because management wouldn't give them to you" is exactly the kind of warped mentality I am talking about in regards to unions. No offense, but based on that one comment, it sounds like you feel a company "owes" you something. I say, F that. They owe you nothing. You CHOOSE to work there and CHOOSE to accept what they pay you or you go somewhere else. If you are a worthwhile employee, they will try to take care of you. I get what I get because of my hard work and my worth to the company.


I still stand by my opinions of the Unions. They were necessary at one time, but are now cesspools of corruption.

Are corporations greedy? Of course! They are FOR PROFIT organizations. Their whole reason for existence is money!

Hammer67
06-04-2007, 07:14 AM
I've been around Union work sites since I was 14. I have never seen anyone sitting on their ass. Matter of fact I've seen my dad send people home for not busting their ass as hard as their foreman was.


This does happen. My uncle is a lifer in the steel industry and works hard.

But I will never forget my dad and other uncle telling me stories of working in the mill during the summer while they were in college and some guy coming up to my dad and telling him to take it easy as he was working too hard and making the other guys look bad.

I think the bad taste in my mouth comes from the fact that, I busted my ass, paid my dues and went to school. I get out and find a job and am happy for what I get. Then I see a Union guy (some friends of mine, like my teacher buddy) bitch and complain about his pay and benefits when he gets paid like a champ and has it great!!! It gets tiring.

This is a big topic right now in Michigan...people are pissed when they find out what the Union has negotiated and gets compensated for.

Jeremy
06-04-2007, 10:07 AM
This is a big topic right now in Michigan...people are pissed when they find out what the Union has negotiated and gets compensated for.

So what? It's called collective bargaining and it's what seperates the free market system from communism. It's funny too because anti-Union types usually love to talk about fair market value and workers negotiating a price with mangement. Well that's exactly what's happened. I do think that Unions have gotten too powerful and need to be reigned back in somewhat. But the day you eliminate them is the day both companies and politicians start rolling back all those labor laws you talk about. If you don't think it would happen, think again. I worked in management for a few years before I joined the Air Force and trust me when I tell you that every CEO in this country would snatch your benefits from you in a heartbeat if they could.

Hammer67
06-04-2007, 11:08 AM
So what? It's called collective bargaining and it's what seperates the free market system from communism. It's funny too because anti-Union types usually love to talk about fair market value and workers negotiating a price with mangement. Well that's exactly what's happened. I do think that Unions have gotten too powerful and need to be reigned back in somewhat. But the day you eliminate them is the day both companies and politicians start rolling back all those labor laws you talk about. If you don't think it would happen, think again. I worked in management for a few years before I joined the Air Force and trust me when I tell you that every CEO in this country would snatch your benefits from you in a heartbeat if they could.


Not if they want to attract top flight talent. Of course they are going to look at how to save money and offer you just enough to keep you. But do you need a forced Union due payment and others to negotiate for you?

I'm sorry, I we have to agree to disagree as I still haven't heard a valid argument that can change my mind about the power of unions in this country. I see the negatives way more then the positives. Just try and set up a booth at a convention trade show to see where it is a pain in the ass. You have to sit and fricking wait for those guys to break you down when you could have been done on your own in half the time! Why??!!

And, it is a big deal in Michigan because, instead of having rational compensation demands, the Unions are (naturally) resistent to any changes. As a result, the companies are closing plants and downsizing or sending work overseas where they can get the same work cheaper.

The way the unions are set up now promote laziness and lack of accountability. I am all for people trying to negotiate a better wage and am all for capitalism. But I also think that I am not owed anything by a company that hires me other then the agreed upon wage. If I don't like it, I will go somewhere else. If they don't want to pay it, then they don't value my work anyway. If they do, they will pay. It's as simple as that.

:cheers:

Jeremy
06-04-2007, 11:36 AM
Not if they want to attract top flight talent. Of course they are going to look at how to save money and offer you just enough to keep you. But do you need a forced Union due payment and others to negotiate for you?

I'm sorry, I we have to agree to disagree as I still haven't heard a valid argument that can change my mind about the power of unions in this country. I see the negatives way more then the positives. Just try and set up a booth at a convention trade show to see where it is a pain in the ass. You have to sit and fricking wait for those guys to break you down when you could have been done on your own in half the time! Why??!!

And, it is a big deal in Michigan because, instead of having rational compensation demands, the Unions are (naturally) resistent to any changes. As a result, the companies are closing plants and downsizing or sending work overseas where they can get the same work cheaper.

The way the unions are set up now promote laziness and lack of accountability. I am all for people trying to negotiate a better wage and am all for capitalism. But I also think that I am not owed anything by a company that hires me other then the agreed upon wage. If I don't like it, I will go somewhere else. If they don't want to pay it, then they don't value my work anyway. If they do, they will pay. It's as simple as that.

:cheers:



What? You really think it's Unions that are driving companies overseas? Companies are going overseas because they can treat workers like garbage and get away with it. American companies in particular are stubborn about giving anyone incentive to leave unions behind. Foreign companies like Toyota are exellent at putting working with unions and creating an atmosphere where both can coexist. But American companies have their heads buried in the sand on this issue.

What has me confused is you say labor laws protect you, but then you say that you don't need more than the agreed upon wage. Well then labor laws really aren't protecting you are they? It's also obvious that you don't have kids. Because if you did, you'd understand why American workers demand health care coverage when they negotiate contracts. And I'll go one step further and say that you're against universale health care coverage. I'll be very curious to see what happens the first time you get stuck with a $70,000 hospital bill and nothing but your agreed upon wage to cover it.

Hammer67
06-04-2007, 12:39 PM
What? You really think it's Unions that are driving companies overseas? Companies are going overseas because they can treat workers like garbage and get away with it. American companies in particular are stubborn about giving anyone incentive to leave unions behind. Foreign companies like Toyota are exellent at putting working with unions and creating an atmosphere where both can coexist. But American companies have their heads buried in the sand on this issue.

What has me confused is you say labor laws protect you, but then you say that you don't need more than the agreed upon wage. Well then labor laws really aren't protecting you are they? It's also obvious that you don't have kids. Because if you did, you'd understand why American workers demand health care coverage when they negotiate contracts. And I'll go one step further and say that you're against universale health care coverage. I'll be very curious to see what happens the first time you get stuck with a $70,000 hospital bill and nothing but your agreed upon wage to cover it.

Why would you be owed more then an agreed upon wage?

I am all about whatever it is you can get and negotiate. And, whether or not I have kids is a non issue in this matter. I am not against health care or comapnies providing it.

Clearly you don't know much about the American Auto industry and their union concessions. Not trying to slight you or anything, but if you did, you wouldn't have made that statement.

I have never worked for a company where I have seen more Union cooperation and concessions then at my company (one of the Big Three). Pension plans, family health care for life, flex hours, over 20 company wide, paid holidays (including opening day for deer season). You think those things equate to being "treated like garbage?"

And, I have family members that worked in the airline industry, for comparison. My brother and mother are both in HR. (My brother has a degree in labor and industrial relations and has negotiated union deals for his company). Neither one could believe the benefits my company currently has in place for their contract. And, I know that my company is insisting on lowering some of the compensation (pensions, etc.) for the next negotiation phase out of necessity. Plus, with all of the recent layoffs and buyouts (some of them in the six figure range), they offer tuition reimbursement, career fairs and in some cases relocation packages. Not too bad a deal for, in some cases, an unskilled laborer.

So, I suggest reading up on some of those things before making definitive statements like that. I am not anti Union, per say. I am just a realist, and think some people don't realize how good they have it and think they are "owed."

Hammer67
06-04-2007, 01:02 PM
What? You really think it's Unions that are driving companies overseas? Companies are going overseas because they can treat workers like garbage and get away with it. American companies in particular are stubborn about giving anyone incentive to leave unions behind. Foreign companies like Toyota are exellent at putting working with unions and creating an atmosphere where both can coexist. But American companies have their heads buried in the sand on this issue.



Oh...and here is some reading for you about the wonderful pro Union Toyota vs GM.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06144/692719-185.stm

:coffee:

P.S. The most critical part of this article in regards to our discussion is this:

"In Arlington, GM pays union-scale wages of $26.50 to $30.50 an hour to its 2,800 hourly workers there. On average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to U.S. hourly workers, including pension and retiree medical costs. At that rate, labor costs per vehicle at Arlington are about $1,800, based on the Harbour Consulting estimate of labor hours per vehicle.

In San Antonio, Toyota will use non-union labor and will start its 1,600 hourly workers at $15.50 to $20.33 per hour, which will grow after three years to $21 to $25. Harbour Consulting President Ron Harbour estimates Toyota's total hourly U.S. labor costs, with benefits, at about $35 an hour -- less than half of GM's rates. The brand-new plant won't have any direct retiree costs for many years. So if the San Antonio factory does no better than match the Arlington plant in productivity, it could still enjoy a labor cost advantage of about $1,000 per vehicle, a substantial sum in industry terms. That's money Toyota could translate into extra standard features -- such as stability control -- that could make its trucks more appealing."

Jeremy
06-04-2007, 01:19 PM
Oh...and here is some reading for you about the wonderful pro Union Toyota vs GM.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06144/692719-185.stm

:coffee:

Did you read the article or just post it? Because 90% of that article focuses on the regional factors as well as government tax breaks. On paragraph talked about labor costs and even then it admitted that the numbers are off because Toyota has no retirees to deal with.

You hate Unions, I get it. You talk about your grandfather and his views on Unions, but I bet he took full advantage of every bennie he got didn't he? I think you probably should wait until you've spend a couple of years in management before you can understand what this country would look like without strong labor unions.

Hammer67
06-04-2007, 02:53 PM
Did you read the article or just post it? Because 90% of that article focuses on the regional factors as well as government tax breaks. On paragraph talked about labor costs and even then it admitted that the numbers are off because Toyota has no retirees to deal with.

You hate Unions, I get it. You talk about your grandfather and his views on Unions, but I bet he took full advantage of every bennie he got didn't he? I think you probably should wait until you've spend a couple of years in management before you can understand what this country would look like without strong labor unions.


Yes, I read the article. It is one example and it still debunks your earlier post about Toyota and the American automotive industry treating their employees like garbage. And, actually, the amount spent per car is even greater when you factor in the Michigan and Kentucky plants form the other two American manufacturers.

And, no you must not get it because I don't hate the idea of Unions, as I have repeatedly stated. I hate what many of them have become and what type of work ethic they often (not intentionally) promote. Unions can serve a great purpose, but they are now less necessary and often abused. (Teamsters, anyone?) And what is the deal with a forced (i.e. closed shop) membership? I remember the Moon Township Giant Eagle cashiers and baggers went on strike once when I was in High School. First, I couldn't believe there was even a union of cashiers and baggers (closed shop, no less). Second, I remember them getting really mad because Giant Eagle just hired new employees. I didn't blame Giant Eagle. I say, if you are trying to make a career out of a job that a High School kid would easily do for minimum wage, don't get pissed off because the company isn't willing to pay more for it. Go educate yourself and find a new career! That doesn't equate me hating the Union. I just couldn't see the point of their gripes.

I can't speak to what benefits my grandfather did or did not take advantage of. I do know that he was/is a hard worker and a man that did not live extravagantly or beyond his means. He raised 7 children who are all good, hard working and practical people. He also didn't abuse the system and frowned upon others that did. You can make any assumptions you want but that's all they would be, assumptions.

Peace,

Rob

:wave:


P.S. Let me add that my feelings towards Unions in no way defend the actions of some corporations and CEO's that take golden parachutes and exercise stock option worth millions while the company is laying off thousands of employees.

Preacher
06-04-2007, 03:08 PM
Hammer

What is interesting...

Is that 1000 dollars per vehicle for labor costs... takes away the buying power of the middle class in America for vehicles. Think about airlines, phone companies, car rentals, etc.etc. Union made means an extra charge for union paid.




The short-sightedness of unions.

Hammer67
06-04-2007, 03:40 PM
Hammer

What is interesting...

Is that 1000 dollars per vehicle for labor costs... takes away the buying power of the middle class in America for vehicles. Think about airlines, phone companies, car rentals, etc.etc. Union made means an extra charge for union paid.




The short-sightedness of unions.


That is part of the problem, especially in the automotive industry. And they are just now noticing it. You have some people, considered unskilled labor, making more money then people with MBA's and they balk when someone suggests that may not be market value. Anyone with a lick of logic must realize the hole some of the major union employers dug themselves into and the political power of the Unions themselves.

But, human nature is to hold on to what you have. And I don't blame them (union employees) for being offended when GM, Ford, USAirways, etc. realize they are overpaying and come back and say "Enough".

Then, all of a sudden, you have this guy who has a family and has maybe overextended himself or even just learned to live off of that high income. Perhaps he has multiple cars, kids in college, summer cabins, boats, a high mortgage payment, etc. Of course they would balk at that. But unfortunately, as they are learning in Michigan (and as they learned in Pittsburgh in the 60's and 70's), if you aren't willing to take a cut back down to reality, then you won't have a job, period.

It is a really touchy subject as many people need to change the fabric of their lives.

Preacher
06-04-2007, 03:44 PM
That is part of the problem, especially in the automotive industry. And they are just now noticing it. You have some people, considered unskilled labor, making more money then people with MBA's and they balk when someone suggests that may not be market value. Anyone with a lick of logic must realize the hole some of the major union employers dug themselves into and the political power of the Unions themselves.

But, human nature is to hold on to what you have. And I don't blame them (union employees) for being offended when GM, Ford, USAirways, etc. realize they are overpaying and come back and say "Enough".

Then, all of a sudden, you have this guy who has a family and has maybe overextended himself or even just learned to live off of that high income. Perhaps he has multiple cars, kids in college, summer cabins, boats, a high mortgage payment, etc. Of course they would balk at that. But unfortunately, as they are learning in Michigan (and as they learned in Pittsburgh in the 60's and 70's), if you aren't willing to take a cut back down to reality, then you won't have a job, period.

It is a really touchy subject as many people need to change the fabric of their lives.

Yep!

Jeremy
06-04-2007, 05:15 PM
That is part of the problem, especially in the automotive industry. And they are just now noticing it. You have some people, considered unskilled labor, making more money then people with MBA's and they balk when someone suggests that may not be market value. Anyone with a lick of logic must realize the hole some of the major union employers dug themselves into and the political power of the Unions themselves.

But, human nature is to hold on to what you have. And I don't blame them (union employees) for being offended when GM, Ford, USAirways, etc. realize they are overpaying and come back and say "Enough".

Then, all of a sudden, you have this guy who has a family and has maybe overextended himself or even just learned to live off of that high income. Perhaps he has multiple cars, kids in college, summer cabins, boats, a high mortgage payment, etc. Of course they would balk at that. But unfortunately, as they are learning in Michigan (and as they learned in Pittsburgh in the 60's and 70's), if you aren't willing to take a cut back down to reality, then you won't have a job, period.

It is a really touchy subject as many people need to change the fabric of their lives.


I got it now. "I'm smarter than you so I should make more money." If you had been straight with me from the get go we would have never had to have this argument.

See ya later.

Hammer67
06-04-2007, 05:27 PM
I got it now. "I'm smarter than you so I should make more money." If you had been straight with me from the get go we would have never had to have this argument.

See ya later.

Dude, don't get all offended. That's not it. But, I do think there is a hierarchy to pay-scale. That's why I don't make as much as someone with an MBA and they probably won't make as much as a Doctor or Lawyer. Schooling has a direct influence on earning potential. Period. And, it has nothing to do with how "smart" you are. One of my best friends is a mechanic and can rebuild an engine. I would have no idea where to start. But, I can build a computer and fix his PC problems. I went to college, he didn't. Does that make either one of us smarter then the other? Absolutely not. But the fact that I went to college, does probably (I say PROBABLY) open up my earning potential and options more then his. That's all. He could go to college if he wanted to and be in the same position.

That being said. The earning potential of someone with a PHD is much better then someone with only a GED. That's life, buddy.

Don't drag this conversation down and make insinuations about my views just because you disagree with me and are taking it personally. :dang:

fansince'76
06-04-2007, 05:40 PM
But the fact that I went to college, does probably (I say PROBABLY) open up my earning potential and options more then him.

That being said. The earning potential of someone with a PHD is much better then someone with only a GED. That's life, buddy.


I can attest to this being absolute fact as I've been on both sides of this coin - I joined the military (6 years) and then went to work right after high school as I was burned out on school and finally went back to college in my late 20's as a non-traditional student, earning my Bachelor's in my early 30s. My reasons? I got tired of working shit jobs for shit pay and watching people who I was genuinely more intelligent than earning double (or more) what I was making at the time, solely due to the fact that they had a "sheepskin" and I didn't. I certainly don't regret my decision to go back at all - I'm way better off now than I was then as far as my finances are concerned. And you're absolutely right about your point as far as "the more you learn, the more you earn" is concerned, Hammer - that most assuredly is life.

Jeremy
06-04-2007, 06:02 PM
Like I said, I'm out. I see where this thing is headed and I have no desire to be a part of it.

Mosca
06-04-2007, 06:08 PM
The point of the initial article isn't covering just blue collar workers. It covers all workers, blue collar, tech, IT, middle management; everyone who could be considered "middle class".

No one owes anyone a living. What I see is more troubling; it's the belief that we can continually do better that is at risk. It's that belief that drives us all upward.

Our optimism is something that makes us American. Globalism be damned, we love the carrot on the stick. For every union worker that you can accuse of slacking, I can show you one taking all the overtime he can get, or doubling out his hourly with piecework. I've been in sales for the last 26 years because I love the thrill of making every last damn dollar I can.

We have the reputation of being the hardest workers on the planet, Asians notwithstanding. We work more hours per week and take less vacation time than anyone. There is no shortage of work ethic in this country, and that is because of the belief that work is rewarded. I see it reflected constantly here in the forum. EVERYONE here believes in the value of work. Why? Not because we like working! It's because we believe that the REWARD is there. We have been taught that if we work hard we can win!

Take away that belief, and what is left?


Tom

Hammer67
06-04-2007, 06:10 PM
I can attest to this being absolute fact as I've been on both sides of this coin - I joined the military (6 years) and then went to work right after high school as I was burned out on school and finally went back to college in my late 20's as a non-traditional student, earning my Bachelor's in my early 30s. My reasons? I got tired of working shit jobs for shit pay and watching people who I was genuinely more intelligent than earning double (or more) what I was making at the time, solely due to the fact that they had a "sheepskin" and I didn't. I certainly don't regret my decision to go back at all - I'm way better off now than I was then as far as my finances are concerned. And you're absolutely right about your point as far as "the more you learn, the more you earn" is concerned, Hammer - that most assuredly is life.


Exactly. And it has less to do with "smarts" and more to do with motivation and will.

Well, my point has been made...but, unfortunatley, too many people around where I live do not see things this way and are going to be in for a pretty harsh reality check soon. Here's hoping those that have been less fortunate find employment outside of this industry!

And, my job isnt' safe either. But I made it through the first and second round of cuts, so obviously I have something they want/need.

:thumbsup:

Hammer67
06-04-2007, 06:25 PM
The point of the initial article isn't covering just blue collar workers. It covers all workers, blue collar, tech, IT, middle management; everyone who could be considered "middle class".

No one owes anyone a living. What I see is more troubling; it's the belief that we can continually do better that is at risk. It's that belief that drives us all upward.

Our optimism is something that makes us American. Globalism be damned, we love the carrot on the stick. For every union worker that you can accuse of slacking, I can show you one taking all the overtime he can get, or doubling out his hourly with piecework. I've been in sales for the last 26 years because I love the thrill of making every last damn dollar I can.

We have the reputation of being the hardest workers on the planet, Asians notwithstanding. We work more hours per week and take less vacation time than anyone. There is no shortage of work ethic in this country, and that is because of the belief that work is rewarded. I see it reflected constantly here in the forum. EVERYONE here believes in the value of work. Why? Not because we like working! It's because we believe that the REWARD is there. We have been taught that if we work hard we can win!

Take away that belief, and what is left?


Tom


Now sales is a tough gig. There is a position where you CAN'T slack. You get what you put into it. I worked in IT sales selling servers to VAR's up until about 5 years ago when I decided to go to my roots and get on the more techical side of the business.

You have to have the drive to get rejected 100+ times a day when you start out in sales. I thought I could have done well at it as did my former employer but I didn't have the heart for it...I owed it to them and myself to leave and pursue what I wanted.

What do you sell?

Mosca
06-04-2007, 06:41 PM
Now sales is a tough gig. There is a position where you CAN'T slack. You get what you put into it. I worked in IT sales selling servers to VAR's up until about 5 years ago when I decided to go to my roots and get on the more techical side of the business.

You have to have the drive to get rejected 100+ times a day when you start out in sales. I thought I could have done well at it as did my former employer but I didn't have the heart for it...I owed it to them and myself to leave and pursue what I wanted.

What do you sell?


Check your PMs.


Tom

Preacher
06-04-2007, 07:48 PM
I got it now. "I'm smarter than you so I should make more money." If you had been straight with me from the get go we would have never had to have this argument.

See ya later.

Jeremy. That is not even close to what is being said. There are people with all kinds of intelligence doing all kinds of jobs.

However, the truth is, those who choose to sacrifice making a living for more education usually come out making more money. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem however, is when people demand the same or more money then those who have sacrificed 4, 6, 10 years of thier life in education.

In some cases, they deserve that money, and a non-union job will allow those who do not get educated, but can perform better then the post HS educated people, to be justly compensated. Meanwhile, in a union job, your stuck at your wage, regardless of how hard you work, regardless of how much education you have had.

And by the way, college degrees, master's degrees, and doctorates are NOT about a persons' intelligence, they are about a persons tenacity.

tony hipchest
06-04-2007, 08:11 PM
And by the way, college degrees, master's degrees, and doctorates are NOT about a persons' intelligence, they are about a persons tenacity.very true. its like that old joke of what they call the person who graduates 1st and last in the their class at harvard medical school?

"doctor"

you see the trust fund babies, who slide by getting "c"s, then you see those on non sports scholorships who are required to maintain a 3.5. at the end of the day the degree says all the same. its all about the tenacity and drive.

LarryNJ
06-04-2007, 08:13 PM
We have the reputation of being the hardest workers on the planet, Asians notwithstanding. We work more hours per week and take less vacation time than anyone. There is no shortage of work ethic in this country, and that is because of the belief that work is rewarded. I see it reflected constantly here in the forum. EVERYONE here believes in the value of work. Why? Not because we like working! It's because we believe that the REWARD is there. We have been taught that if we work hard we can win!

Take away that belief, and what is left?


Well if the original article is true, which I tend to agree with Preacher in I find it hard to believe. I think work ethic has everything to do with it. We the 40 + crowd were brought up with a great work ethic. If we work hard we'll win. If you want something earn it. When I was 11 years old I wanted a new 10 speed bike. My father told me to go find a way to earn the $69 and buy it. I got a paper route and a few months later I had my bike.

Today an 11 year old boy wants a bike that's $200 (inflation). His dad buys him the $400 bike that night. Kids don't have to work for much, it's often handed to them. I believe the parents of today do a bad job of instilling the same work ethic that our parents gave us which ultimately will hurt them when they get older.

I'm also in sales. I have seen very talented young guys who would make great sales guys. For example: they sale like crazy the first 2 weeks of the month making $3500 in commissions, than they do nothing the last 2 weeks. You ask them why and they say "I only need to make that much." Someone with a better work ethic would double that or more.

The work ethic of the younger generation simply isn't what it was.


trust me when I tell you that every CEO in this country would snatch your benefits from you in a heartbeat if they could.

The CEO of my company believes that if you hire the best, pay them well which includes benefits, the company will be sucessful.

Mosca
06-04-2007, 08:27 PM
LarryNJ,

And who among us in sales hasn't broken the bank one month... only to be told that their pay plan is being adjusted, and what used to be the ceiling is now the floor? You'll find that story to be just as common across this land as the one about sales people who only work hard enough (which I've seen far to much of, too).


Tom

LarryNJ
06-04-2007, 09:18 PM
I hear ya brother!! :)

Jeremy
06-04-2007, 11:06 PM
Well if the original article is true, which I tend to agree with Preacher in I find it hard to believe. I think work ethic has everything to do with it. We the 40 + crowd were brought up with a great work ethic. If we work hard we'll win. If you want something earn it. When I was 11 years old I wanted a new 10 speed bike. My father told me to go find a way to earn the $69 and buy it. I got a paper route and a few months later I had my bike.

Today an 11 year old boy wants a bike that's $200 (inflation). His dad buys him the $400 bike that night. Kids don't have to work for much, it's often handed to them. I believe the parents of today do a bad job of instilling the same work ethic that our parents gave us which ultimately will hurt them when they get older.

I'm also in sales. I have seen very talented young guys who would make great sales guys. For example: they sale like crazy the first 2 weeks of the month making $3500 in commissions, than they do nothing the last 2 weeks. You ask them why and they say "I only need to make that much." Someone with a better work ethic would double that or more.

The work ethic of the younger generation simply isn't what it was.




The CEO of my company believes that if you hire the best, pay them well which includes benefits, the company will be sucessful.

He'd be the first I've ever heard say that.

tony hipchest
06-04-2007, 11:11 PM
He'd be the first I've ever heard say that.i dont know if he works for cisco, but john chambers is a fine (and rich) CEO who believes its all about the people you hire and how you treat/reward them.

GBMelBlount
06-04-2007, 11:47 PM
We have the reputation of being the hardest workers on the planet, Asians notwithstanding. We work more hours per week and take less vacation time than anyone. There is no shortage of work ethic in this country, and that is because of the belief that work is rewarded. I see it reflected constantly here in the forum. EVERYONE here believes in the value of work. Why? Not because we like working! It's because we believe that the REWARD is there. We have been taught that if we work hard we can win!

Tom

Tom, spoken like a true american. Great post.

Jeremy
06-05-2007, 09:05 AM
i dont know if he works for cisco, but john chambers is a fine (and rich) CEO who believes its all about the people you hire and how you treat/reward them.

He must not be rewarding his people very well then because Cisco equipment is garbage.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-05-2007, 09:53 AM
He'd be the first I've ever heard say that.

CEO's of Google say the same thing....and CEO Jim Sinegal of Costco is also all about the workers. After three years a typical full-time Costco worker makes about $42,000, and the company foots 92% of its workers’ health insurance tab.
82% of their workers are non-union.

He says “From day one, we’ve run the company with the philosophy that if we pay better than average, provide a salary people can live on, have a positive environment and good benefits, we’ll be able to hire better people, they’ll stay longer and be more efficient.”

A 2004 Business Week study ran the numbers to test Costco’s business model against that of Wal-Mart..... The study confirmed that Costco’s well-compensated employees are more productive.

The study also revealed that Costco’s labor costs are actually lower than Wal-Mart’s as a percentage of sales.... Its labor and overhead costs are 9.8% of revenues, compared to Wal-Mart’s 17%.

By compensating its workers well.... Costco also enjoys rates of turnover far below industry norms. Costco’s rate of turnover is one-third the industry average of 65%

A little homework will show that their are good/bad CEOs just like anything else in life.

Jeremy
06-05-2007, 10:27 AM
CEO's of Google say the same thing....and CEO Jim Sinegal of Costco is also all about the workers. After three years a typical full-time Costco worker makes about $42,000, and the company foots 92% of its workers? health insurance tab.
82% of their workers are non-union.

He says ?From day one, we?ve run the company with the philosophy that if we pay better than average, provide a salary people can live on, have a positive environment and good benefits, we?ll be able to hire better people, they?ll stay longer and be more efficient.?

A 2004 Business Week study ran the numbers to test Costco?s business model against that of Wal-Mart..... The study confirmed that Costco?s well-compensated employees are more productive.

The study also revealed that Costco?s labor costs are actually lower than Wal-Mart?s as a percentage of sales.... Its labor and overhead costs are 9.8% of revenues, compared to Wal-Mart?s 17%.

By compensating its workers well.... Costco also enjoys rates of turnover far below industry norms. Costco?s rate of turnover is one-third the industry average of 65%

A little homework will show that their are good/bad CEOs just like anything else in life.

The CEO of Google is also a socialist.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-05-2007, 10:35 AM
The CEO of Google is also a socialist.

I'm sorry...does that negate his or Costco's concern for their workers? I thought you had said that you had heard of NO CEO that has concern for their workers?

Jeremy
06-05-2007, 10:41 AM
I'm sorry...does that negate his or Costco's concern for their workers? I thought you had said that you had heard of NO CEO that has concern for their workers?

No, it was just some gee wiz info for you.

You guys proved me wrong. But like you said, there are good CEOs and bad CEOs.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-05-2007, 10:50 AM
No, it was just some gee wiz info for you.

You guys proved me wrong. But like you said, there are good CEOs and bad CEOs.

Check out Costco's way of doing business...it really is remarkable!!!...they are so "on the money". We had to convince management here of the very same concepts....Raise the base pay..and you will not only get a better quality of potential employee and therefore be more effecient...but you also will end up saving money on training by cutting back on attrition.

Hammer67
06-05-2007, 10:56 AM
CEO's of Google say the same thing....and CEO Jim Sinegal of Costco is also all about the workers. After three years a typical full-time Costco worker makes about $42,000, and the company foots 92% of its workers’ health insurance tab.
82% of their workers are non-union.

He says “From day one, we’ve run the company with the philosophy that if we pay better than average, provide a salary people can live on, have a positive environment and good benefits, we’ll be able to hire better people, they’ll stay longer and be more efficient.”

A 2004 Business Week study ran the numbers to test Costco’s business model against that of Wal-Mart..... The study confirmed that Costco’s well-compensated employees are more productive.

The study also revealed that Costco’s labor costs are actually lower than Wal-Mart’s as a percentage of sales.... Its labor and overhead costs are 9.8% of revenues, compared to Wal-Mart’s 17%.

By compensating its workers well.... Costco also enjoys rates of turnover far below industry norms. Costco’s rate of turnover is one-third the industry average of 65%

A little homework will show that their are good/bad CEOs just like anything else in life.


I find this fascinating. I did read an article recently discussing the changing corporate culture and how the days of the CEO's getting golden parachutes are waning...

Of course there will be poor and bad CEO's, just like at any other position. But they wouldn't get paid as much as they do if there wasn't some worth to the position. When you are in charge for the entire direction of a public company, that's a lot of stress and responsibility.