15 Dec '13 01:07>2 edits
This post is unavailable.
Please refer to our posting guidelines.
Originally posted by karnachzNike factory work exported to Indonesia, resulted in 5X increases in wages for the workers there, and the efficiency allowed Nike to grow exponentially. Huge numbers of middle management, sales and marketing jobs, as well as the tangential jobs of companies selling Nike gear, like Dick's Sporting Goods.
Of course they can afford it, and they're sitting on enormous amounts of wealth. They just enjoy exploiting workers and ripping the guts out of them if they can get away with it. Lots of people once enjoyed owning slaves. It's easier to send unskilled work (such as Nike factory work) overseas, than to do the same to a CEO; plus the CEO makes a lot of the de ...[text shortened]... t exists in more than one country, thus making it harder for a single government to regulate it.
Originally posted by vivifyThe bailouts of both the banks and the car makers prove exactly what I'm saying. Companies making poor choices deserve to become extinct, whether the overpaying is line workers or executives. No bailouts.
Another good point. Although, who was it that voted to give themselves raises with bailout money, even though their failures brought about the need for a bailout? I bring that up only because I'm sure we can find just as many examples of people who don't deserve their outrageous salaries.
Originally posted by normbenignAt the very least, there's a case for a welfare state within the U.S. and other first-world countries. There aren't enough jobs to go around, because corporations like Nike send the jobs overseas. Welfare beneficiaries aren't at fault for their own predicament, so they need to be paid a living allowance so they survive intact. Yes, one individual might be able to fight hard and get a job, but that means someone else misses out on the job instead, if there aren't enough jobs to go around.
Nike factory work exported to Indonesia, resulted in 5X increases in wages for the workers there, and the efficiency allowed Nike to grow exponentially. Huge numbers of middle management, sales and marketing jobs, as well as the tangential jobs of companies selling Nike gear, like Dick's Sporting Goods.
Of course they can afford it. So you say. But ...[text shortened]... t government or any other outsider to dictate wages or other things about how a business is run.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, I don't believe so. A foreign company can make shipments as a foreign business, through importing and exporting. That way they're treated like a foreign company by the government. I don't mind a foreign company having a -physical- presence within a country that they're not registered as a business within, e.g. owning buildings to store cars in.
But doesn't that require for instance a GM to have some kind of presence, directly or indirectly, in Liechtenstein?
Originally posted by karnachz"There aren't enough jobs to go around, because corporations like Nike send the jobs overseas."
At the very least, there's a case for a welfare state within the U.S. and other first-world countries. There aren't enough jobs to go around, because corporations like Nike send the jobs overseas. Welfare beneficiaries aren't at fault for their own predicament, so they need to be paid a living allowance so they survive intact. Yes, one individual might be a ...[text shortened]... that means someone else misses out on the job instead, if there aren't enough jobs to go around.
Originally posted by normbenignWe saw the consequences of lack of government during Herbert Hoover's presidency. The New Deal reduced the unemployment rate from 24.9% to 14.3% within four years. If you think that government investment has increased the unemployment rate at other times, then I'd like to see some evidence for this claim, please.
"There aren't enough jobs to go around, because corporations like Nike send the jobs overseas."
At the time Nike exported jobs, it employed about 300 people making athletic shoes, at two US factories. Count how many people Nike now employs.
One of the big reasons for not enough jobs is that government has invested so heavily in ventures that quickly go bust.
Originally posted by karnachzSo then what you are saying is that all production should be local? This is hardly any more feasible - many countries lack the natural resources to make everything required for a modern society.
No, I don't believe so. A foreign company can make shipments as a foreign business, through importing and exporting. That way they're treated like a foreign company by the government. I don't mind a foreign company having a -physical- presence within a country that they're not registered as a business within, e.g. owning buildings to store cars in.
Originally posted by bill718Is anyone who currently is making minimum wage actually worth $15/hr, which is what they're demanding the min wage be raised to? No.
Too all those out there who think raising the minimum wage is a bad idea, consider this. While the minimum wage has slowly climbed in the last few decades (amid the whailings of multi billion dollar companies who claim they can't afford it) executive pay, even for medium sized business's has gone up much faster. This begs a few questions:
1. Are these executives really worth all these millions of dollars a year?...
Originally posted by karnachzNothing FDR did in his first term was any different than what Hoover had been doing.
We saw the consequences of lack of government during Herbert Hoover's presidency. The New Deal reduced the unemployment rate from 24.9% to 14.3% within four years. If you think that government investment has increased the unemployment rate at other times, then I'd like to see some evidence for this claim, please.
As for Nike, even if what you say is tru ...[text shortened]... on could very easily have instead grown within the U.S., without exploiting third-world workers.
Originally posted by normbenignYear; Tax Receipts; Spending; Growth; Unemployment Rate
Nothing FDR did in his first term was any different than what Hoover had been doing.
Take the period from 2008 to 2012. Last year of Bush Presidency, and Obama's first term. Unemployment went from around 4.5% to over 10% and persisted there a long time inspite of massive spending by both Bush and Obama.
Incidentally, this virtually parallels the ...[text shortened]... they did not make what the New Hampshire and Oregon workers did, but they dramatically improved.